Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9193] 
Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Associate Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The third reading of this bill marks one of the final stages in paving the way for the SuperGold card to be launched in August this year. New Zealand First campaigned on a dedicated seniors card at the last election. We made such a card a cornerstone of our supply and confidence agreement and we have worked since that time to bring it to fruition. The SuperGold card recognises the immeasurable contribution our seniors and veterans have made and continue to make to New Zealand society. From August this year the SuperGold card will be available to approximately 540000 New Zealand residents who are aged 65 or over or who are aged under 65 and receive New Zealand superannuation or a veteran’s pension. 
The benefits of the card are many and moreover they can be expected to grow over time. Some members may know that seniors cards have been available in Australia for some 15 years now. We know from the experience there that the seniors card system over there has improved dramatically over time. As well as enabling senior citizens to access commercial discounts from SuperGold card business partners the card will help them to access the wide range of central and local government entitlement services and concessions already available to them. 
The card and the information services that support it will be a focal point for ensuring that seniors know all about the assistance currently available and to be available to them and ensuring that they can go about getting it. There are a host of benefits so legion that I cannot possibly list them all now. [ 
Interruption 
] For the benefit of the member for Coromandel who goes around disabusing people of the truth on this matter and says all sorts of things that are fictional when she knows from this House and from the law—if she only understood a part of it—that what she is foreboding as being likely to happen is not a fact is not the law and is not going to happen I ask her to forget about the mangroves and try to focus on something serious for a while in her political life as brief as that will be. 
In this way the card will be a platform—a vehicle providing our seniors with the help and information they need to live healthy and independent lives now and in the years ahead. It will replace the community services card for eligible cardholders aged 65 and over and the superannuation card. Cardholders will be offered the option of a photo—I ask members to notice the words “option of a photo”—on their card. That will be useful for those who do not have a driver’s licence or other form of photo ID. Veterans with war and emergency service may opt to receive a specially branded veterans’ version of the card. There will also be a dedicated SuperGold card website 0800 phone number and printed directory promoting the range of entitlements concessions and discounts available to cardholders across the country from central government local authorities and businesses. 
Let us consider the provisions of the bill and clear up some of the confusion wanton and egregious as it has been that was apparent during the second reading debate. As members will be aware the bill makes two amendments to section 132A of the Social Security Act 1964 which is an existing provision that enables regulations to be made for the issue and use of entitlement cards. I repeat: it is an existing provision. The first amendment in Part 1 will allow regulations to be made allowing for cardholder photographs to be placed on entitlement cards. 
Sandra Goudie 
: It doesn’t say optional. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is optional. Section 132A provides a generic regulation-making power for the issue and use of entitlement cards. Although the amendment has been promoted by the probable desire to provide for an optional photograph on the SuperGold card the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill appropriately amends this generic regulation-making power. Now there you have it. 
Sandra Goudie 
: No word “option” in there. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not too difficult and I hope that member has finally got it instead of being some doomsaying Cassandra as Ron Mark says. But she does not know what the word “Cassandra” means or where it comes from and never will know. 
The New Zealand Law Society’s submission to the Social Services Committee asked that the committee satisfies itself that it is appropriate for a power of this scope to be conferred by the proposed clause. The select committee did consider that issue but did not believe it appropriate so therefore recommended no changes to the bill. The regulations relating to the issue and use of the SuperGold card to be made under the amended section 132A(1) will reflect the decision that the photograph will be optional. There are issues to do with accountability oversight processes and the Regulation Review Committee’s ability in the future to look at this issue. 
The second amendment provides for barcodes on entitlement cards in time as technology changes as it will and for microchip technology to be used in relation to entitlement cards. Now let us deal once and for all with the misleading and vexatious claims made by some in this House who have sought to sully this great development for our seniors. 
Ron Mark 
: They hate old people. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I do not know whether they hate old people or what it is. 
Microchip technology will not be part of the card when it is launched in August but we must face reality. In the not too distant future banks and retailers will be moving to chip technology as it is more secure as a medium for storing information. Here in Parliament these members—all of them—are using microchip technology for their security. They have it on their person all of the time. I wish that some of them had it on their person between their lips actually and horizontally. So we would be very negligent if we did not future-proof this card against these developments. We are getting ready for the future. This is the 21st century. It is now 2007 for goodness’ sake. The Luddite National Party should wake up. There is a huge change coming in the world and we should ensure that one of the biggest consumer forces in this country—the elderly—can be part of this great change. 
The amendment allows for the potential use of a card containing a microchip only if all the safeguards are met. The safeguards are already in place to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission will be consulted before any future use of microchip technology. I have given all the assurances. 
It is coming up to the end of my time and I want to close by saying that the SuperGold card is an important initiative that will provide real tangible benefits that will make a difference to the lives of senior citizens. The benefits that are capable of being negotiated—business by business service by service—are huge. All the new passports today carry microchipping. Maurice Williamson wanted to microchip all of our cars; I recall that National’s spokesman on transport wanted to microchip every car. 
I say to National Party members that they should cut out this drivel and nonsense. They are trying to scare some good wonderful old country folk who after all know who can be relied upon here. Between the National Party and New Zealand First there is only one option. The National Party’s record is disastrous. It promised to get rid of the surtax and when it came into office in 1990 instead of getting rid of it it put it up! 
Judith Collins 
: You were part of it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes I was in Cabinet and I was sacked on 1 October 1991 for spelling out the tragedy of the National Party’s betrayal to its constituency. What happened in 1993? Within 18 months National had gone from having the biggest ever win in an election to a hung Parliament—within 3 years. 
This card will honour the wonderful contribution that the elderly have made are currently making and will go on making to New Zealand society. The SuperGold card will be a physical reminder that the cardholder is a valued member of our society with the right to be treated with dignity and respect. I am glad that my colleagues in New Zealand First and other members of Parliament in the present Government including Labour United Future and others had the prescience of mind to support this great initiative the benefits of which are infinite and will be legion over time. I commend this bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Unlike the Minister who has just sat down I do not intend to indulge in 10 minutes’ worth of personal abuse because that is certainly about all we got from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. We got an awful lot of talk about the veterans card and the SuperGold card neither of which by the way is mentioned in this legislation. The legislation is called the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How do you know? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Minister asks how I know. I know because I was the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee and I also know because I can read. 
One of the things we can say about this bill is that it does not apply just to those two aforementioned cards—we have never seen those cards for a start. It applies to all social security entitlement cards should any be issued and that is something the public needed to know about. 
I thought it was actually quite lacking in generosity for the Minister not to acknowledge the fact that the National Party has supported this bill all the way through yet all we got was a whole lot of abuse. He should note that this bill does not deliver exactly what he says it does. What he does not understand is that this bill will entitle a social welfare Minister or an equivalent Minister to put out a card containing the microchipped details of all unemployment beneficiaries or all domestic purposes beneficiaries. If the State is to do that then I think it is probably something the public should know about. I am not saying that we oppose it; I am saying that we think the public should have known about it. 
That is why last week National members worked with other members of this Parliament including the Maori Party United Future Taito Phillip Field the Greens and the ACT party to make sure that Taito Phillip Field’s amendment came through. We wanted to make sure there was some overview from the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. It was an instance of some of the parties in this House working together to deal with an issue National members had raised legitimately in the select committee. The issue is that when we are to have microchips inserted into cards we need to know what it is all about who will be affected what information will be on those cards and also how the privacy of people will be protected. 
Most members in this House felt that point was legitimate. By working together they were able to make the Government and New Zealand First sit up take notice and go along with that because they had the numbers. I notice that the member Russell Fairbrother chortles hugely but it is true—61 happens to be more than 60 by anyone’s count I say to Mr Fairbrother and members worked together to make sure that happened. 
What did members get for the hours they spent on this bill? They got abuse from the Minister of Foreign Affairs who is very very angry because quite clearly the man does not understand that this bill does not relate just to a veterans card or to a SuperGold card. Neither of those cards is mentioned; the bill actually relates to any entitlement card for social security beneficiaries. As I said before we do not necessarily have a problem with that. It is something we would always have to look at take back to caucus and discuss. The problem is that this had not been known to the public until the media put it on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
last week. The point was picked up by the media because they suddenly realised that the SuperGold card was in fact a microchipping ID card by stealth. That was the problem. 
I take the Minister’s assurances that this bill will be meant only for the veterans card and the SuperGold card but I would ask the House why that is not actually stated in this bill. Why has this bill been allowed to be open slather in terms of those entitlement cards with no restrictions at all until we got that amendment through last week to make sure that there was some overview? 
We would like to see veterans be able to have some acknowledgment for their service through this bill. Although many veterans simply said to me that the SuperGold card is a Clayton’s card I think they should probably wait and see what actually comes from it because apparently they will be able to get discounts from some commercial entities and possibly even discounts on rates. Many other national superannuitants have said that for them it is just like the old-age pension card and that they can get a bus pass. 
Many people feel that the card will not actually deliver what it has been promoted as delivering. Also the veterans and old-age pensioners will be asking whether this card will get them their hip operations their knee operations and their cataract operations done in time. Will they get preference? They feel after many many years that they probably deserve a bit of preference in the hospital system. 
If one looks at the National Party policy on veterans one will certainly see that in 2005 we said we believed that that was exactly what should happen for our veterans and that they deserved to be acknowledged for the work they did for their country and for the fact that they risked their lives for us. As I have said we will support this bill. We have supported it through its passage but we have had concerns. I am glad that those concerns have been listened to in the House and I am glad that we have been able to come to a reasonable amendment. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I have just listened to the speech of the previous speaker Judith Collins who busily danced on the head of a pin. She tried to make fatuous comments so she could put out yet another press release on the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill to take the credit for its passing—knowing that the bill would be very popular with the senior members of our society. She will want to obfuscate the fact that in her last speech in the House she said that it was bad legislation and that National members voted for the bill in the Social Services Committee only for some spurious reason of support and to get the matter through the committee. 
The last time Judith Collins spoke about the bill in the Chamber she noted that National always reserved its objection to the bill. But now of course as the legislation becomes a reality she rushes off to issue her next press statement and take unto herself the credit for work she has not done. She does not quite fully mention that this bill has gone through over her vigorous rhetoric and opposition and that there has been no constructive input into the process from either her or her party. If she omits that from her press statement that will perhaps be in keeping with the continued contribution—and I use that word in a very ironic way—of the National Party to the progress of this bill. 
What the National Party does not like about this bill is that it recognises the valued members of this society as the Minister said. The National Party being an entity that recognises value in terms of dollars is unable to see that a gold entitlement card is a statement to each and every senior citizen that the work those senior citizens have contributed to build up New Zealand to what it is today is valued even if each individual senior citizen with a card has no great material wealth. It is itself a statement of recognition and a statement that finally this country recognises the very many ways that it is a good country because of the work of our senior citizens. 
We heard again in the previous speech from that member who sought to dance on the head of a pin that she tried to suggest that there was some untoward conspiracy here—perhaps she should become a sub-editor on  
Investigate 
 magazine—and that there was an attack on recipients of social security benefits generally. I have to say that this matter was not raised at the Social Services Committee by her or by the National Party at any stage otherwise it would have been explicitly dealt with in the report and I would have voted against the bill. 
I repeat at this stage of the third reading that the purpose of this bill is simply to make amendments to the Social Security Act 1964 and the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to enable full effect to be given to the Government’s intention in regard to the SuperGold card. We are talking here about the SuperGold card. That is what this bill is about and that is the bill that has gone before Parliament and will be passed today in the fullness of time. 
Just as National members as they prepare for their press releases are trying to take credit where it is not due unto themselves they have also tried to take from Taito Phillip Field the credit for his amendment which reinforced the steps that are handy but not necessary to ensure the sanctity of privacy of information— 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been a continuous barrage from across the Chamber each time somebody from the Government benches has spoken. It has been very irritating. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for her point of order. I just say that I do not believe the interjections were bothering the member who was addressing the House. Had the interjections done so then I would have pointed out Speakers’ rulings 58/4 and 59/1 to the member on my left. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to challenge your ruling Mr Assistant Speaker but the point that the honourable Tariana Turia is making is not that the interjections are interfering with Mr Fairbrother’s speech but that she is trying to listen to the speech and cannot do so because members sitting close to her on the National benches are making too much noise. I do not think she is objecting on behalf of Mr Fairbrother; she is saying she cannot hear the speech that is under way. I think that is a reasonable request that is in her right to make as the co-leader of a party in this House. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Speaking to the point of order I am prepared to start again if that would assist— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I do not think we need to start again. But I have taken on board what the honourable member has mentioned and I will keep a watch on it. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I am reminded of the saying that empty vessels make the most noise. Perhaps the honourable Tariana Turia would have drawn that conclusion too as she listened to the barrage that has now subdued—which is an obvious admission from the barrackers on the other side of the House that they were making extensive noise in an effort to hide themselves away from the facts of the handiness of this card. 
This SuperGold card recognises as I have already said the contribution that senior citizens make to New Zealand. That is something the National Party cannot stomach. If people measure their success by the size of their bank balance then they will fail to recognise the contribution of those who measure their success in other ways. 
The other thing that sticks in the gall of the National Party is that this SuperGold card fulfils a commitment and fulfilling a commitment to our senior citizens is a matter that the National Party has struggled with in the past. I take just one example of that. On 1 April 1999 the floor used to set New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension rates was cut from 65 percent to 60 percent by the previous National Government. A cut was brought in to reduce the floor level of payment then Jenny Shipley explained to veterans in a letter of October 1998 that doing this—in some weird way—would be of benefit to the superannuitants and the recipients of veterans pensions. 
So this bill upsets National members because it fulfils a commitment made to New Zealand First as part of its confidence and supply agreement with the Labour-led Government. Of course that confidence and supply agreement is well entitled because this country has confidence that this Labour-led Government will honour its commitments to its coalition partner and its confidence and supply partners and in doing so it will honour its commitments to the people of New Zealand and in this case to senior citizens. 
 So what does the card offer? It offers discounts from participating businesses for senior citizens. Here is the rub and the point that the Opposition has tried to exploit with its fear-based argument. Participating businesses are moving from the swipe card—the barcode access—to microchipping and it is becoming an increasingly regular form of commerce to move from a barcode to a microchip-type of database. To enable participating businesses to offer easy access to concessions to senior citizens the card needs to be framed legally so that the improvements in technology can be absorbed therein. 
This is not to suggest that this measure is any invasion of privacy. This is not intended to open the floodgates of rampant State intrusion into people’s lives. This is simply a logical and clear step whereby this Parliament and its laws can keep up with developing activities in the business world. Concessions on Government and local authority services and business concessions can be obtained by the use of the entitlement card—the SuperGold card—that this bill is all about. 
The card will be sent automatically to people receiving New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension with a special version going to war and emergency service veterans. But that is not to say that recipients of the card have to have their photograph on it. There was an interjection during the Minister’s speech with a suggestion from the National Party that photographs would be compulsory. The interjection was to the effect of: “Where does it say it is optional?”. If I direct the interjector Sandra Goudie to clause 5 she will see that it provides merely “for cardholders’ photographs to be affixed”. It does not make it mandatory. It does not state that if people receive a card they have to have their photograph on it. 
Sandra Goudie 
: It doesn’t say “optional” either. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: I suggest that that member takes her time to look at the dictionary and see what the word “provide” means. When the bill states “providing for cardholders’ photographs” it means it allows a cardholder to opt in and have the convenience of a photograph. If that is too obscure for the member then I suggest she goes back to English 101—or perhaps she should aspire to English 101—and get an understanding of the language used in everyday life as well as in this House. 
The card will carry the holder’s name a number and whether the holder receives New Zealand superannuation a veterans pension or has a community services card. If the cardholder chooses to have a photograph for ID purposes then that will be done pursuant to clause 5. 
What the National Party does not like is that about 540000 people will be eligible to receive the card—over half a million people will be eligible to receive the card—and cardholders’ spouses who are under 65 will also be able to access the commercial discounts. What National members do not like is that these benefits will be available in less than 3 months. They will be available from August of this year. 
There is the rub for the National Party—this card’s basic premise is that of common sense. This card offers benefits it offers convenience and it keeps up with modern technology with the protections that surround that technology. This bill is a very good bill. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. In doing so I acknowledge that National is supporting this bill in spite of the rhetoric from the member who has just spoken and from the Minister in charge of this bill. This bill has been dubbed the “SuperGold Card Discount Bill” and we do have to ask ourselves why. All the rhetoric is about the SuperGold discount card yet the bill does not mention the SuperGold card once. 
National members have no problem with what has been achieved through this SuperGold card—well we think something will be achieved but nobody actually knows what will accrue to this card. We would be delighted if some real benefits could come out of this for our senior citizens and we acknowledge the great work that Grey Power has done. It is to be congratulated on all its efforts with regard to the SuperGold card. We recognise the importance of the advocacy role of Grey Power and we are pleased to support the recognition of that and its contribution and the contribution our senior citizens have made and continue to make to our society. We cannot overstate that in any way. 
But I do take issue with the Rt Hon Winston Peters and the Minister Rick Barker over the wording of the bill. At no time did they make much reference to the bill. It was all about the SuperGold discount card. Yet the bill has only two parts to it and not once in the bill are the words “SuperGold discount card” mentioned. 
The purpose of Part 1 is to provide regulation-making powers. What is that for? The regulation-making powers are to provide for photographs and to provide for microchipping. But the regulations will actually constrain what is going to happen around those two provisions. Not once is the word “optional” mentioned. The explanatory note of the bill goes on about the photograph being optional. Well given that that is written in the explanatory note I guess the Government can be held to account—if it is still there at any future date—to ensure that that provision is indeed optional. But there is absolutely nothing that says “optional” in this bill—we only have to read the wording. 
That was something that was made quite clear by the New Zealand Law Society. In fact the Rt Hon Winston Peters actually rubbished the New Zealand Law Society’s submission which pointed out that the wording is quite specific. Paragraph (ba) inserted by clause 5(1) states: “providing for cardholders’ photographs to be affixed to or imaged into a category of entitlement cards and prescribing procedures requirements and other matters in relation to those photographs:”. Clause 5(2) also amends section 132A(2) by inserting the words “or a microchip embedded in them.’ ” So regulations allow for those two activities to take place with regard to entitlement cards not with regard to the SuperGold card. The bill does not mention the SuperGold discount card. The bill talks about entitlement cards—any entitlement card. That means any card issued by this Government that gives people an entitlement to something. The SuperGold card itself is not actually mentioned at all. I just cannot understand why there is so much rhetoric around the SuperGold card when the bill is actually quite clear quite simple and quite specific around a number of issues. 
However the one thing that is needed with regard to the SuperGold card is for the Government to be able to access the information in order to provide that SuperGold card to the 540000 senior citizens who are entitled to it who I am sure would include the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Not yet. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Oh not yet! A dead giveaway! 
The Government has to legislatively provide for itself to be able to access the information about the 540000-odd senior citizens who want to have access to the SuperGold card. But the bill is quite clear that it allows the Government just to access the information from the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages and it amends the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 1995 to that effect. 
Clause 8(1) amends schedule 1A of that Act by omitting the words “Department of Work and Income” and substituting “Ministry of Social Development”. That allows the ministry to have access to that information. But if we look at clause 8(2) we see that it states: “Paragraph (b) of the item relating to the Department of Work and Income in Schedule 1A is amended by adding ‘or a card 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.” So basically the bill is about accessing information from the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages on any entitlement card relating to those specific matters. It does not state: “accessing information only on information for the purposes of the SuperGold card”. It is for any entitlement card based on those particular issues in the bill that I have outlined. It is important that when we are talking about matters to do with our senior citizens we do not mislead them in any way and that we give them the facts of the matter. 
When it comes to the bill those are the facts of the matter. There are only two parts to the bill. They are quite specific and quite clear and relate only in a generalist way to the SuperGold card by the mere fact that the bill is about entitlement cards per se. We do not know anything very much at all about the SuperGold card other than the rhetoric that has been espoused in this Chamber. We cannot say for certain what the discounts are. We cannot say for certain who might miss out and who might be those persons who are fully entitled to the SuperGold card. 
Darren Hughes 
: What would the member like to see on the card? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: We have no idea what the intention is for the SuperGold card. All we know is that we have a bill in front of us right now and there has been very little from the two Government members who have spoken thus far about the actual content of the bill. It has largely been rhetoric about the SuperGold card itself. We are in a position of waiting to see when that SuperGold card is revealed in the time to come whether the trumpeting has been warranted. We hope that our senior citizens will not be disappointed. 
We do not know what will be on that SuperGold card but we do know that in order to issue the SuperGold card access to information from the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages is needed. This is fascinating really because here we have a Government wanting to access that information while at the same time closing down the public’s access to the same information. I find that ironic in the extreme. It is to be hoped that in the future that will not occur. 
In essence the bill is quite simple. It is all about entitlement cards per se—any entitlement card—and the regulation-making powers in regard to those entitlement cards. National supports the sorts of benefits that may possibly accrue to our senior citizens. We absolutely agree that senior citizens have done their time and deserve some recognition for their huge contribution to our society. We also would like to support the acknowledgment of that. We have consistently done so which is why we have also consistently supported the passing of this bill. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. We in New Zealand First are very pleased to see this card becoming a reality. It has been very sad to hear in this debate the cynicism of the National Party speakers. They do not really like to see anybody receiving discounts or anything that they cannot get or have not initiated. I seem to recall that it was no hassle for the National Party to get information on superannuitants at the last election. I remember some letters were sent out. So how the National members can get up and say it is shameful to have knowledge of people’s superannuation details is really beyond me. 
I find it very surprising too that the National Party’s support for this bill has been quite reluctant particularly when we know that senior citizens and veterans are looking forward to the SuperGold card and to receiving some discounts from participating business so that their pensions can go a little bit further than they do at present. At last New Zealand’s senior citizens will be able to enjoy some of the benefits that their Australian counterparts enjoy—and have done so for some time. That is basically how it should be here in New Zealand. If it can be done in Australia it can definitely be done here in New Zealand. This type of approach is long overdue. 
It has been a very great shame that this card has been caught up in the general hysteria over microchipping. Seniors have nothing to fear over the SuperGold card. A card like this is used safely by Australian senior citizens and the same will apply here in New Zealand. As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in question time last Thursday the SuperGold card will not be issued with a microchip but will have a magnetic strip and barcode. The information contained on them will be limited. It is quite interesting to see that the legislation has a clause that deals with microchips but that is basically aimed at future-proofing the card. We know that magnetic strips and barcode technology are rapidly going to become redundant. We are also very aware that banks and retailers are already moving towards the use of microchip technology. When it comes to this particular card it would be totally negligent for us not to at least think of trying to future-proof the legislation. If that clause had not been in the legislation New Zealand First would be castigated for a lack of vision or forward planning. Really in this particular case it is a bit like being the meat in the sandwich. The scaremongering directed at our seniors has been quite scandalous. If the SuperGold card is to be functional in the future it will require that technology. 
But again we emphasise that the SuperGold card will not be issued with a microchip when it is launched in August. Like all other MPs here in this House the New Zealand First members know that any move towards microchip technology will require a thorough review by both the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. That will always be the case despite the scaremongering we have heard. Microchip technology is not being slipped on to the SuperGold card secretly in the dead of night. We on this side of the House have no desire to see any information related to our seniors be abused or misused. The checks are already in place to provide the strongest possible protection against the misuse of information. Our seniors and veterans—and we know there are over 540000 of them—deserve far better than to have this sort of fear put into them. 
I believe that the SuperGold card is an excellent example of what can occur in the MMP environment and of how MMP actually works in practice. We must acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson the Minister for Senior Citizens for her support and work to ensure that the SuperGold card becomes a reality. At the last election New Zealand First campaigned on a dedicated seniors card and we have worked since that time to ensure that it has become a reality. We are very aware in New Zealand First that those with goodwill can work together in the best interests of all New Zealanders. With this particular card New Zealand First did not promise the moon and deliver dust—as many others have often done at election time. We followed through on the policy and we will continue to do so with regard to every one of the items in our confidence and supply agreement with the Labour Government. 
We are very pleased to hear that a website is to be set up when the card is launched to keep seniors informed of developments. I accessed the Australian Seniors Card website and was very interested to see the competitions discount directories short-term offers latest discounts and travel discounts—the list just goes on. I am sure that if all of that information is included on the New Zealand SuperGold card website then our seniors will be absolutely delighted. For those people who do not use the Internet—and we know there are some—there is a freephone number. We must also remind them that a published printed directory will also be available to promote the range of entitlements concessions and discounts that are available to cardholders from central government local authorities and businesses. Really seniors will have all of that information available to assist them to make the best possible use of the benefits available. 
We in New Zealand First see the SuperGold card and the benefits that will be available as being complementary to the Grey Power card. Both of those cards will have the common objective of ensuring the best and most extensive use of the purchasing power of every senior’s income. We believe and we know particularly from the Australian experience that those cards—both of them—will provide tangible benefits that will make a real difference to the lives of our senior citizens. 
In New Zealand First we have always maintained that the treatment of our seniors sends a clear signal of our status as a developed nation. This card recognises the contribution that our seniors and veterans have made and continue to make in our society. We know for a fact that the voluntary sector in particular is helped hugely by our senior citizens—St John Ambulance Meals on Wheels SeniorNet and the many other organisations that our seniors belong to. There are far too many to list here. Our seniors make a really great contribution and it is timely to ensure there is recognition of that. I think that all of us here in this House have to recognise that many of our seniors—our parents—are busy looking after their grandchildren after school so that those children do not have to go into after-school care and caring for sick children on the days that parents have to go to work. Seniors do make a huge contribution. 
Our senior citizens can choose to use their SuperGold card as a form of photo ID if they so wish and that will be entirely at their own discretion—it is optional. I know that many of us use our drivers’ licences as ID for that particular purpose. Some of the senior citizens I have spoken to are actually looking forward to having their photos on their SuperGold card because they believe that it will actually safeguard their card. 
We can assure people that the benefits of the SuperGold card cannot be discussed prior to its launch because they are commercially sensitive. Nobody can say which businesses are participating in the SuperGold card before the card is actually launched. I know we have heard criticism of that from National members over the past few weeks but they should just wait—help is on the way the discounts are coming the directories will come and people will be able to find out. 
New Zealand First is very pleased that this bill has now reached this stage in the process. We support this bill and we look forward to the launch of the card in August. We believe that our seniors have earned the SuperGold card and we look forward to receiving their feedback on it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill on the grounds that it will enable pensioners to get better access to services and to discounts from various agencies—both Government and private agencies. We hope it will give an impetus to various firms and to those in the local body and Government sectors to provide greater discounts. If we travel to Australia for example or to Ireland we find that pensioners there or people getting superannuation often get considerably greater discounts on a greater range of things than is the case here in New Zealand. Hopefully this SuperGold card will be an advance for pensioners and beneficiaries on superannuation. 
This legislation has been controversial beyond the basic nature of the card in terms of the legislative provision for microchips to be added to the cards. There was an argument from the various parties in the House that were rather cautious about putting microchips on the cards at this stage—or about giving legislative provision for that at this stage—and they wanted much more investigation into privacy issues before that took place. So there was a difference between the Government side where members said they wanted this legislated in advance and the rest of us on this side of the House who thought: “Why not inquire first and if need be legislate later?”. If we did have a proper inquiry or investigation into microchips and all their implications there might well be consensus in the House and it would not be difficult to put through legislation for that—possibly even in statutes amendment legislation. I think all the scaremongering about how difficult that would be is quite wrong. It is much better to err on the cautious side. 
We did make some progress during the debate. Taito Phillip Field’s amendment for example talked about the State Services Commission the Privacy Commissioner and other State agencies being consulted before an Order in Council was enacted to put microchips on cards. That goes a little way towards satisfying our concerns but not the full distance. It is good that the Privacy Commissioner is to be involved there and perhaps the fact that the Social Services Committee recommended a review of the principles governing the use of such technology could lead to a fairly urgent review of some form—one involving public input. Whether that is another select committee review or some broader review I think that a review is required. 
The concerns of those who were worried about what the Privacy Commissioner called function creep—it could also be called mission creep in another circumstance—were that there are dangers there. It is said that the card will be voluntary but we can easily see how in practice a voluntary card can become a compulsory card either through reward or punishment if the use of the card is extended to other categories of the population—other beneficiaries or whatever—or if people are denied access to certain services without the card. That could take place in either public or private institutions. It could also become more obligatory if there are extra rewards or if people are being told that if they want extra rewards they have to have their cards on them. 
The other problem is that once we have a microchip system—and if the microchip has sufficient capacity if it is a fairly modern microchip—all sorts of other things can be added to it. We know that the microchips in our passports have facial recognition systems digitalised on the chips which are used particularly when we pass through the United States immigration service and when officials take photographs and compare those with the digitalised versions of our faces on the microchips in our passports. Of course when we go through US border control we have our fingerprints taken which are digitalised and kept in the records there. Those sorts of recognition biometrics can be added to a microchip at any time. 
The other thing about microchips that we really have to go into is the way in which the information on them can be easily transferred to databases and be the basis for a more general ID card in the community. We have to move very cautiously so that we do not go as quickly down the road as some other countries in Europe and Australia are going towards generalised ID cards. There are huge privacy problems involved when generalised ID cards are used for virtually everything in society—for what we are doing our preferences where we are moving and all sorts of things. Those can be so easily kept track of if we have a generalised ID card of course and we know that that ability exists to some degree already in the various cards we have. But if everything is wrapped up in one card it can be even more intrusive in a privacy sense. 
Although we live in a fairly tolerant society now I think we always have to work out our privacy legislation and what we do with things like ID cards on the basis that at some future time we might have a less democratic Government or in some ways a more repressive Government. We do not want to set up a system to enable a more responsive Government to control the population to a large degree. Someone said to me that if we think back to Nazi Germany if they had had all this really modern surveillance technology with universal ID cards we know that none of the Jews would ever have escaped from being sent off to concentration camps. They would have been so easy to track down. So we have to think of the use of this technology not in terms of the liberal form of society we have now but in terms of a more repressive society. 
That is not to say that we are against microchips on various cards. There is nothing wrong with bus cards debit cards cards for convenience and all those sorts of cards some of which have photo ID and some of which do not. No one is against the use of modern technology in terms of cards and in terms of microchips but we have to be careful how that is implemented particularly on State-provided cards. 
I also take up the point Judith Collins made that it is rather strange that on the one hand we have this legislation that enables people to in effect have access to birth dates and other information from the Births Deaths and Marriages register on the card but on the other hand we have a Births Deaths and Marriages bill before the House in which the Government is trying to reduce all public access to information in that register information that has been open since 1848 and that is so critical for historians biographers genealogists—anyone doing research of a historical nature. It is so stupid for access to the register to be closed to these people under that bill. There is no reason for it to be closed. It is so stupid to have provisions where one has to wait for 50 80 or 100 years to get access to information or one has to get the agreement of the immediate family one is trying to access information about. It is a rather confining sort of bill and it is in contradiction to the information being provided on the SuperGold card under this bill. 
As I say the Greens will be voting for this bill because of the advances it will make for pensioners. We will be looking forward to the inquiry into whether microchips should be put in the card and we will put a serious focus on the privacy issues involved. Thank you. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Today is an auspicious day to be debating the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. May 15 was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1993 as the International Day of Families. So as we mark this international day of whanau we turn to thoughts of our kaumatua who are at the very heart and core of whanau. In thinking about elders and in farewelling the late head of State of Samoa the Maori Party takes this moment to express our sympathies at the sad passing of another revered elder kuia Maera Moekau Couch who gave her life to the communities of her beloved Pae-o-Hauraki and Rapaki. It was not very long ago that this 92-year-old kuia was honoured with an award that recognised the distinctive contribution she had made in encouraging other seniors to play an active role in society. Moe mai e te whaea rangatira ki to moengaroa. 
[ 
Slumber there in your sleep without end matriarch 
.] 
Any proposals that come into this House to improve the standard of living of our elders to enhance their access to Government services and entitlements and to improve the provision of information to them will earn the support of the Maori Party particularly because only 4.1 percent of our old people actually live long enough to ever receive superannuation. Our elders are those who provide us with the leadership and the vision to guide our future directions. We in the Maori Party are very conscious of wanting to protect the special place that they have in our communities to value their contribution and to put strategies in place by which we can ensure the continued participation of older people. 
We believe that the SuperGold card recognises the contribution our pakeke have made and currently make to Aotearoa and we are happy to support it. We thank New Zealand First for negotiating such a great opportunity for the elderly in its coalition arrangements and we thank the Hon Ruth Dyson the Minister for Senior Citizens for her support of the card. 
We have debated the pros and cons of this bill. We have been aware that in improving the standard of living for seniors we must also be mindful of the need to ensure that whanau members and caregivers are informed of the purpose of the entitlement card and the opportunities that it represents. Far too often individual entitlements are not promoted to the degree of attracting universal understanding. We do not want the eligibility for particular services to be granted only to those in the know. The well-being of all senior citizens must be guaranteed and if this card brings with it commercial concessions thereby reducing the cost of goods and services we must ensure whanau are supported to take up those rights. So we hope that when the first tranche of the SuperGold cards comes off the production line in August our senior citizens aged 65 and over—or aged under 65 and receiving the veterans pension in their own right—will be well informed of exactly what their entitlements are. 
But we have one very significant concern with regard to this bill. It is the hidden danger behind the honourable intentions of supporting our pakeke which is of course the element of intrusion and surveillance piloted in this bill: the microchipping proposal. The Maori Party supported the amendment by Heather Roy to have the microchipping clause removed from the bill and we did so on the grounds that this bill as the Law Society advised was the first occasion on which legislation has authorised the use of microchips on cards. We have heard all the arguments including those of the Minister that it would be irresponsible to introduce a discount card without ensuring it could apply the technology of the future and of course we know the future use of radio frequency identification tagging known as RFID is not very far off. The microchips introduced under this legislation are just one step along the way towards the global surveillance society. 
The concern for the Maori Party has been the way that such a significant proposal has been slipped in the back door riding on the coat-tails of a proposal designed to support our pakeke and enhance their golden years. I remember when George Orwell’s  
Nineteen Eighty-Four 
 seemed fanciful fiction and in that novel “thought crime” was monitored by the thought police who had “telescreens” in every home and hidden microphones and informers in order to catch the potential “thought criminals”. The “Ministry of Truth” exercised complete control subjecting the nation to a re-education to the newspeak of the totalitarian Government. At one point the key player—ironically also with the name of Winston—Winston Smith is told: “But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always at every moment there will be the thrill of victory the sensation of trampling on the enemy who is helpless.” But of course the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is set in 2007 not 1984 and we are given every assurance by the Rt Hon Winston Peters that under this legislation microchip technology will not be introduced without the Privacy Commissioner’s and the State Services Commissioner’s agreement. 
The tension for us is in allowing microchips to be introduced. None of us really know what else lies in store. Which other Government social service card will be next? Twenty years after  
Nineteen Eighty-Four 
 
the 25 privacy commissioners of the European Union adopted an initial position on the use of radio frequency ID technology. In their statement on 19 January 2005 they expressed their concern about the possibility of radio frequency ID technology being able to “violate human dignity as well as data protection rights”. The questions we raised at the second reading of this bill reiterated the concerns of New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff: concerns such as who controls the access to the information what sort of technological protections should be mandated to guarantee privacy and how to avoid function creep with the information from the microchipped cards being used for wider purposes than were originally intended. 
The concerns around microchipping are influenced by a paper from Dr Paul Roth a professor of law at the University of Otago. In his paper  
Workplace Privacy Issues Raised by RFID Technology 
 he describes a case in 2004 where a Mexican Attorney-General and 160 of his employees had rice grain - sized radio frequency ID tags implanted in their arms to regulate access to restricted areas of the headquarters. Then there is the VeriChip the very first Food and Drug Administration - approved human implantable radio frequency ID microchip. It was approved in 2002 in the United States and is typically implanted in the arm. It is code named by privacy advocates as a “spy chip”. The primary concern of course is that like Big Brother in the Orwellian tale the movements of a person can be traced without his or her will. These new types of electronic bloodhounds—the bio-chip implants and the biometric fingerprints—may indeed be part of a future that we must all be prepared for. 
So in the context of the SuperGold card we cannot be oblivious to the risks inherent in the microchipping device. It may not be a case of the “Ministry of Truth” or the thought police but there are certainly sufficient grounds for concern to have the members of the Maori Party worried. We welcome the amendment put forward by Taito Phillip Field to provide that the microchipping will go ahead only after consultation with the Privacy Commissioner the State Services Commissioner and any other relevant body. We will be following that process with great interest to ensure that every concern is explored. We remain convinced that the jury is out as to whether the use of microchip technology is of such critical importance to the senior citizen discount cards that one could not have been voted on without the other. But we will not stand in the way of our elders and it is with their interests at heart that we vote in support of this bill. Kia ora. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. One of the interesting things happening around the progress of this bill is the number of businesses and organisations that are sending very clear signals that they will be offering discounts for SuperGold cardholders. In fact one of the reasons why the bill needed to be amended to address the fact that barcoding provisions had been overlooked was that large retail chains have indicated their willingness to honour senior citizens with credible discounts and they wanted to manage that opportunity from head office rather than to have staff do that at the point of sale. 
The passing of this legislation is the beginning of a huge challenge to recruit as much buy-in as is possible to ensure that the potential this policy offers is fully realised. The cost of the card is justified only if there is an allocation of funding to promote it to the business and community sectors. The question remains for me as to whether Government departments will match the private sector in using this mechanism to provide improved and affordable access to health education and local government and social services for the over 65s. The tensions that exist between providing fair income rates for superannuitants and the maintenance of a sustainable superannuation scheme into the future mean that it is more than helpful if underpinning our system for seniors who are on low fixed incomes we have a system of community support that effectively reduces living costs while encouraging community participation. 
Perhaps the other potential for the SuperGold card that most excites to United Future is the opportunity it provides us to tangibly honour our over 65s. Honouring our elders is usually dished up—or neglected—at a family level. Where families do this well this card will merely supplement their efforts. However for those who live without significant appreciation and support this card could make affordable the chance for them to participate in community activities to belong to community clubs and organisations and to attend community events. I believe there is huge community goodwill that can be tapped into. 
Commercial advantages are great; social advantages are priceless. I hope that as this card is promoted as much effort is put into securing the support of the community sector as is put into gaining buy-in from the retail sector. Australian veterans are a classic example of people who revel in the status that their gold card provides them with. It is a simple mechanism—a simple card—but with the potential to deliver recognition status goodwill and advantage to our 540000 deserving older New Zealanders. United Future is happy to support this third reading. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. I would like to be standing today and saying that ACT proudly supports this bill because I think it has some very good initiatives in it particularly with regard to the SuperGold card—although it should be remembered that this bill is not specifically about the SuperGold card but is an amendment to the Social Security Act to cover all entitlement cards that fall under that broad heading—but sadly that is not the case. ACT will not be supporting this bill for the very reason that it does contain a provision for the use of embedded microchips in cards that are covered under this amendment bill. Sadly the work has not been done to support the safe use of these cards particularly with regard to privacy issues—and I will come to that issue in a moment. 
When the New Zealand First member talked about this bill she spoke about a good deal of hysteria and said that that was scandalous. In fact the issues raised last week during the Committee stage of this bill were not hysterical. They were not about hysteria. They were very real concerns that I had about privacy issues and those concerns were supported by 59 members in the Committee—almost half of the members that we have in Parliament. 
There were concerns around the use of microchips. This work has not been done. Overseas countries such as the United States and the countries comprising the European Union have all signalled their discomfort with the use of microchips particularly the use of radio frequency identification tags when some microchips are able to act in this capacity. Those countries have decided within the last 6 months to stall any decision-making around the use of these microchips for the purpose of the verification of human identification. 
When they are signalling such strong concerns I think it is pertinent that we take a moment to stand back and look at what the issues might be to look at the prospect of adding these microchips without the background work having been done either internationally or here in New Zealand and to look to the very good advice that we have in New Zealand around the use of such technology. 
The New Zealand First member said that it is scandalous and I would like to ask her just what exactly is scandalous. She talked about hysteria which to my mind does not exist at all. Very real concerns were raised and they were raised by a large number of people—not only by me in my amendment and other Opposition members in this Chamber but also by the Privacy Commissioner who is not normally a woman referred to as someone who suffers from hysteria. She normally gives very good respected advice. For the member to say that she is dealing in the area of hysteria I think is quite rightly wrong. 
The Law Society gave a very strong submission. Its recommendation to the Social Services Committee was that there should be a general review of the principles governing the use of highly functional technology such as microchip technology on Government-issued cards generally and that the matter should be referred to the office of the Privacy Commissioner. The Privacy Commissioner had made some comments on this bill but had made no public statements until last week because she had not been asked to do so. The Privacy Commissioner said that this SuperGold card has some far-reaching implications that need to be explored thoroughly before a final decision is made. She went on to say that a microchipped card may mean many things especially if it is also used as an identity card for commercial purposes perhaps with a unique identifying number for each person. She said that security is a real issue both for the data stored on the cards and for the risk of identity theft. She also talked about the very real issue of the potential for function creep where the card ends up being used for far more than was originally intended. I think that far from being hysteria both of those comments from the Law Society and the Privacy Commissioner are very measured responses to a very real issue of privacy that exists in our society. 
 The other support for my amendment came from Grey Power and I think it would be very odd for New Zealand First to start saying that Grey Power is suffering from hysteria. I can see that the New Zealand First member Barbara Stewart is protesting at this very moment but when she uses words such as “hysteria” she should use them with a great deal of caution because I think that these people will take exception to the use of such words. 
So what is scandalous? It is not that people raise valid concerns about privacy with the use of microchips on these entitlement cards—and it is not just the SuperGold card. Of course we now know that that card will not come out with a microchip. The advice we were given by the Ministry of Social Development at the select committee was that if clause 5(2) had been deleted from the bill then there would have been no implications for the introduction of the SuperGold card. So my question relates to why we are racing this measure through in our legislation when in fact it is not needed for the SuperGold card at all—despite the fact that last week Mr Peters’ office told the  
New Zealand Herald  
that the card would not be functional without the microchip. So there is a good deal of confusion within the New Zealand First office itself. 
What is scandalous is not that these concerns have been raised but that New Zealand First and Labour have a complete disregard for the privacy concerns of Kiwis—and in this case those people are some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens. I regret that I am not able to stand here today and support the bill. We had fully intended to until the issue of embedded microchips—or the potential for such—came to the fore. Until then we had certainly intended to support the bill. Identity theft is also something we have not talked a great deal about but it is a danger particularly with microchips that can act as radio-frequency identification tags. It could well be that cards with these tags in them could make it to somebody’s letterbox and the information on them read. This is actually the electronic version of steaming open an envelope. 
I do not for one minute mean to suggest that all microchips have this capability; they do not. But if we read clause 5(2) very carefully we see that it talks just about embedded microchips. It does not talk about the type of microchip and it does not specify the function that these microchips will have. So by passing this measure into law today this House is actually allowing a free-for-all in the use of microchips of any type or nature. 
When we consider our veterans—veterans who are also entitled to the SuperGold card and who have fought so proudly for our freedoms in this country—it is wrong that today we are putting in place legislation that could see their private details being stolen in many cases without their knowledge. 
I come back for a moment to the comments made by the Law Society in its submission. The general review of principles governing the use of highly functional technology—and the matter being referred to and looked at thoroughly by the Privacy Commissioner—is very important. This is exactly what should have happened with this bill at its very outset. Sadly it did not and as we are seeing today measures are being rushed through. 
The process that the Law Society outlined would have been absolutely the right process to follow. The Privacy Commissioner made some very important comments last week that are being disregarded here in the Chamber today as people vote in favour of this bill. She should have been involved. She should have been involved very thoroughly. 
In putting forward this bill as a Government bill Mr Peters and the Labour Government have neglected the security of some of our most vulnerable citizens. They have done this by by-passing basic privacy principles. We are seeing the potential for the playing of privacy poker with other people’s chips. ACT will not stand in this Parliament and condone this. For that reason we will be opposing this bill. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said in his introductory comments the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill is the next step in making the SuperGold card a reality. Its purpose is to enable the full effect to be given to our Government’s intentions in regard to the delivery of this card. Specifically the amendments contained in the bill will allow regulations to be made under the Social Security Act 1964 providing for implementation of a SuperGold card offering an optional cardholder photograph that will be useful for those who do not have a driver’s licence or any other form of photo ID and containing a bar code that will help streamline the process by which businesses apply SuperGold card discounts to cardholders when they present their card at the point of sale. In order to future-proof the card the bill will also allow regulations to be made providing for an imbedded microchip in the card if and when this proves useful to cardholders at some stage in the future. 
The card as originally—and in fact always—intended will be launched without a microchip in August this year. Again as was always intended—and the bill now makes it explicit because of the amendment moved by Taito Phillip Field—any move to use microchip technology in relation to the SuperGold card or in relation to any other entitlement card will not occur without consultation with the Privacy Commissioner and the State Services Commission. 
The bill will allow a bar code or a microchip to contain only information that can already be stored on a magnetic strip. I know that some people have raised concerns about the information to be stored but I say that those concerns have been misunderstood and misrepresented for political point-scoring—and senior citizens will know this to be the case because the legislation makes it very clear what information can be stored on the card. It does not allow anything in addition to what can already be stored on a magnetic strip. 
Let me outline to the House exactly what can be stored. First is the cardholder’s name. A photograph if it is included—and it is voluntary as the Rt Hon Winston Peters outlined—will provide additional security. The strip can include an identifying number assigned by the department to the cardholder—the superannuation number. It can have a number or code indicating the cardholder’s class of eligibility for the card. An identifying number can be assigned to the card. The commencement and expiry dates of the card and a code number for mailing purposes can be on the card. 
If members had bothered to read section 132A(2) of the Social Security Act they would have seen that that is the limit in law of the information that can be stored without any further legislative amendment. So in order to merit the concerns raised by the “bordering on hysteria” member for the ACT party the law would have to be changed. There is no issue about breach of privacy. The legislation ensures that as future opportunities for discounts and concessions for senior citizens become available and if they are available only through the use of a microchip we do not have to spend hours of time in this Parliament using up legislative opportunity to do something the law will already allow us to do. This concern is political point-scoring by both National and ACT to the detriment of over 550000 New Zealanders who are interested in seeing the outcome of this legislation rather than being scared by deliberate misrepresentation. 
I think the progress of this bill through the House will be welcome news to all those senior citizens throughout the country. I know that having heard the entire debate they will understand that their private information is not under threat. It is the sole intention of this measure to ensure that senior citizens are able to access smart technology as it advances at the earliest possible opportunity so that more concessions and discounts can be added to the SuperGold card. 
Finally this bill will also allow the Ministry of Social Development to obtain and use information from theRegistrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages for the purposes of verifying a person’s eligibility or continuing eligibility for the card. The Labour-Progressive coalition Government and New Zealand First are proud to have worked together to establish the SuperGold card. As well as providing access to discounts on goods and services from businesses around the country the SuperGold card and the information services that support it—a website directory and 0800 number—will help ensure that seniors are easily able to access the range of services entitlements and concessions available to them from central and local government. 
The SuperGold card is the last in a long list of policies and initiatives that our Government has enacted to ensure that seniors have more support to help them to live independent and healthy lives. As the SuperGold card is part of Labour’s confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First we have committed to adjust New Zealand’s superannuation annually to a minimum of 66 percent of the average ordinary wage for a married couple—1 percent higher than required by legislation. We first fulfilled this commitment on 1 April last year. On 1 April this year we adjusted the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension rates yet again raising them by 5 percent. More than 508000 New Zealanders have been benefiting from extra money in their pockets since that time. 
Since 1 July 2004 New Zealanders aged 65 and over have been eligible for lower-cost general practitioner visits and prescription charges through their local primary health organisation. Two-thirds of SuperGold card holders will have an identifier on their card that also indicates their entitlement to income-tested community service card benefits. That means they will have to carry only one card instead of two. 
In July of last year we increased income thresholds for the rates rebate scheme to $20000 per annum—up from $7500—meaning that more people than ever are eligible for this assistance. Couples whose only income is New Zealand superannuation will now receive some level of rebate if their annual rates bill is more than $1150. As an example a couple in that situation who have a rates bill of $1900 are now eligible for the maximum rebate of $500. 
We are also developing a code of practice for home equity conversion schemes in order to ensure that the financial interests of older people are protected. Financial protection of older New Zealanders is also a focus of our work to amend the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 to ensure that older New Zealanders and others have greater legal protection when setting up an enduring power of attorney. 
Of course we have recently made a number of changes to the licensing requirements for older drivers doing away with mandatory age-based road tests. For those older people who no longer drive other forms of transport can provide the means for their independence. For example the total mobility scheme provides a subsidised taxi service to people with serious mobility constraints. People who qualify receive taxi discount vouchers usually of 50 percent off the normal taxi fare. 
Last but certainly not least in 2001 we launched the New Zealand  
Positive Ageing Strategy 
. That strategy provides a framework for integrating policies and programmes across the whole of government at central regional and local level and ensures that our Government departments and agencies consider older people before making decisions. The new SuperGold card sits alongside and compliments these Labour-led Government initiatives. 
Importantly it encourages the private sector to get involved in improving the lot of older New Zealanders. Businesses around the country are able to sign up as a SuperGold card business partner. People may have tuned in to listen to or they may have watched Parliament this afternoon. I encourage all businesses that have not already done so to pick up the phone and call the SuperGold business partner freephone 0508 650 000. Not only will they be giving something back to senior citizens they will be doing themselves a favour. Older people are loyal customers. They value word-of-mouth recommendations especially from their peers and they are a growing group. There is also a contact phone number for cardholders—0800 254 565. By August a website will also provide a wealth of information on the entitlements available to older New Zealanders. 
The SuperGold card honours the contribution older New Zealanders have made and continue to make to New Zealand society. It is an acknowledgment of the respect they deserve. It will be a physical reminder of the Government’s commitment to seniors and to veterans and will improve their standard of living through the commercial discounts available through the card and by helping them access the range of services entitlements and concessions available. 
This bill is a fine example of how a modern-day Government works. Cooperation and delivering on promises and arrangements made—in this instance a confidence and supply arrangement with New Zealand First—leads to something of this kind: the SuperGold card for our senior citizens the first-ever card of its kind in New Zealand. 
I commend the perseverance of my colleague my Associate Minister for Senior Citizens the Rt Hon Winston Peters for making this bill and the SuperGold card a reality. I conclude by also acknowledging the officials and the select committee for their work. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. I have listened to hours of debate on this bill before Parliament in the last couple of weeks I have read the  
Hansard 
 of the debates and I have pretty much absorbed what everybody has been saying. The discussions have ranged over a huge topic from Russell Fairbrother talking about homophobes to discussions about passports being microchipped in order to allow Americans to track us to my fellow National colleagues being called bizarre—often quite absurd—names. And so the debate has gone on. But the intention of the bill is that this amending legislation be used as a vehicle for the SuperGold card to allow concessions and discounts for New Zealand residents who are aged 65 years and older. The intention of the card is to provide commercial discounts to cardholders from participating businesses and it will help to facilitate seniors’ access to concessions on central government and local authority services. 
There really is no debate that senior citizens have contributed significantly to our community and deserve to be treated with respect and where possible given concessions in their retirement in recognition of the great contribution they have made to our society. It is important that we recognise the efforts of Grey Power which has lobbied hard and efficaciously for this card. Whether the card can deliver commercial discounts and concessions from central government and local authorities we will have to see. Many are touting this card as a failed attempt at Fly Buys. We have not been told yet whether anybody has signed up to the card or how committed central government is to giving more discounts to senior citizens than those that they already receive. But I am sure that people will be lining up for the card and that sooner or later we will hear from those who are committed to helping our senior citizens. 
There are only two parts to this bill. Both are quite simple. The first part relates to an optional photo on a card and the ability to microchip the card at some time in the future. The second part relates to the Births Deaths and Marriages register database being used to collate the necessary information. When this bill was first introduced only three submissions were received so it is not a very contentious bill. The submission from the Law Society was the biggest submission received. It made a submission on the entitlement card in which it stated that the prospect of microchips being embedded on cards issued by the Government did raise a more general concern due to the functionality that microchips can possess including the ability to operate as radio frequency ID tags. 
The society went on to say that as far it was aware this bill would represent the first occasion when legislation has authorised the use of microchips on cards. At least it is the first time that such use has been authorised on such a large scale. This provision impacts on 540000 senior citizens. We are talking about a massive scale of use and one whereby the cards will be reissued with a microchip whenever the Government decides to do so. The Law Society recommended that the Social Services Committee call for a general review of the principles governing the use of highly functional technology on Government-issued cards generally and that the matter be referred to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. 
Strong views were voiced at the select committee that a more general inquiry particularly around the use of microchips is necessary before legislation allowing microchips is enacted. There was debate at the select committee raised by the National Party initially concerning microchips. So National was concerned from day one about these microchips and what could be recorded on them. The officials came in many times to tell us exactly how the microchips would work even though at the time they could not give us a figure as to how much the cards would cost. 
The debate in the House on this bill has related mainly to microchipping. Microchipping is something that I do not believe this country or this Parliament has had an opportunity to speak on. I believe that the people of this country need to have a discussion about it so that they can make a decision themselves about whether microchipping on the scale of this measure is a path that New Zealand really wants to go down or even whether we are ready to go down that path now. I believe it is wrong that we are passing this legislation without hearing the opinions of New Zealanders on that issue. 
Last week one of my colleagues spoke about the bill being a Trojan Horse saying the legislation is not about the gold card at all but about developing legislation that allows all cards to be microchipped in the future by only a change in regulation. National is very concerned about the information that may be stored on the microchip and we believe that the provision regarding microchipping should be deleted. 
We believe that senior citizens deserve something—and something good—but that the way to really help them is by truly raising their standard of living and the only way we will do that is by raising the average income in New Zealand. National is committed to raising the average income which will then have a flow-on effect on to the superannuation that our senior citizens receive. We believe that this card is a good thing in general and say we are committed totally to the senior citizens of New Zealand. Thank you. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am really pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill which we are debating here today in Parliament. I think it is very important legislation for older New Zealanders and it is not only a good sign from a policy point of view of what we are doing for people over the age of 65 but it is also another reminder of how Government works under MMP. 
I would like to start off by congratulating the Minister in charge of the bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The card is not a new idea from Winston Peters—he has been in favour of it for a very long time. It was one of the things that New Zealand First brought to the table as Labour worked with New Zealand First after the last election to put together the governing arrangements for New Zealand. We have now been able to put the idea into legislation and make it happen. It is a good reminder of the way our governing system works under MMP. A Government is formed and other parties that support that Government bring their ideas to the table and we are able to turn those ideas into legislation. So I welcome this legislation not only for the policy and what it does but for what it represents as well—yet another contribution to the great MMP system that our country voted to have at the referendum in 1993. 
Speaking as the member of Parliament for Otaki I remind members that that electorate has a higher number of people over the age of 65 than any other electorate in New Zealand. 
Hon David Carter 
: They deserve a decent member. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I say to Mr Carter that they have a decent member. I can assure him that they look at the candidates and make the right decision and that is what they did at the last election. It was a privilege and an honour to be elected and I hope they do it again. But I will not be taking any electorate advice from David Carter. I will not be going to David Carter and asking him for any advice on elections at all. Seeing that he lost three times on the trot I do not think I will be asking him for any advice—but I hope he dishes it out to his colleagues so effective has he been. 
I return to the point I was making about my constituents in the Otaki electorate. There are a lot of people over 65 who look to see what the Government is doing to make life a little easier. I think this Government’s record since 1999 shows that at every step we have tried to make a whole lot of improvements for people. This bill is just the latest in a whole series of attempts by the Government to assist those who have served our country in many spheres and who are now in retirement. 
The third reading of this bill will set up what we will call the SuperGold card. Opposition members have got themselves into a twist about the fact that the bill does not actually mention that name. We had a long dissertation from Sandra Goudie about that. What Sandra Goudie needs to understand—if possible—is that we are setting up a legislative framework here from which the card will be derived and will have its own name. We are trying to bring together in an easy and simple way for older people all the services that are available to them from the Government. There are a lot of those services—and Mr Carter will be experiencing them shortly—and there are also services and benefits that the business sector and the community and voluntary sector want to offer people over the age of 65. I am convinced that if we can have those all in one place—all with the SuperGold card—that will be a great advance for older people. 
One of the things the card will be able to achieve for us is a much more coordinated approach—not necessarily from the Government because I think the Government is very focused on having policies and frameworks for older people. We have an excellent Minister for Senior Citizens in the Hon Ruth Dyson. For a long time we have been trying to coordinate things better with such things as our  
Positive Ageing Strategy 
 and all the different work we have been doing. But for the private sector there has probably not been a mechanism for businesses to be able to put forward the services and discounts they might want to offer in order to get more market share. That has not been easy for them to do. So the Government is introducing this provision which is a very business-friendly approach in terms of getting access to the market of senior citizens who of course are a growing number in New Zealand. There are already 540000 people over the age of 65 and clearly that figure will continue to grow. So we will need to come up with continually fresh policies like this to make sure we are delivering for that group of New Zealanders. 
I was interested to listen to the Hon Ruth Dyson earlier. She reminded me that on 1 April this year—and this is another example of Labour’s working agreement with New Zealand First—the rate of New Zealand superannuation went up quite significantly. I have very good feedback in my electorate about this. The fortnightly payment has gone up by $26 for married couples and $13 for single pensioners. That is actually significant money. I sat down and worked out that for some married couples when that increase every fortnight is added up over the course of a year the Government through that increase alone is basically paying the power bill in their home. The Government has put in place something whereby pensioners can save that money specifically as a contribution towards the power bill. [ 
Interruption 
] Clayton Cosgrove has just interjected to say— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: He shouldn’t have done that. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Doug Woolerton said he should not have done that but it was quite helpful. While I was talking about the pension going up Mr Cosgrove said: “Hang on. Haven’t there been times in New Zealand when the pension has gone down?” and in fact the Minister is quite right. Do members know what the National Government did in 1990? National came into office and said it was going to get rid of the surtax. Did it do that? The surtax did not go down. It did not get wiped; it went up. National campaigned on getting rid of the surtax and then put it up. Later on when it wanted to give tax cuts guess how the tax cuts were funded? Did National put the pension up to fund the tax cuts? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh no. National put the pension down to fund the tax cuts. In order to make sure it could give tax cuts to people when it had the choice it cut the pension. Nobody would want to put that on a SuperGold card and the Labour-led Government with the support of many parties would not do that. But the National Party in Government when it was faced with a choice about cutting taxes went ahead and did that and paid for it by cutting the pension. It also paid for it by putting up university fees for young people trying to get ahead in life. That is what the National Party did for older people. It did not inflation-adjust the pension—something that Labour does every single year. 
The SuperGold card might also be able to build on some of the improvements we have been able to make in health-care services for older people. Every pensioner now has every pharmacy item subsidised and pays no more than $3 per item. It used to be $15 per item so for pensioners that is a huge improvement. The cost of going to the doctor has fallen as a result of the primary health organisation money that has gone into that provision. It was voted against by National. National members now say they support it. Who would know? Do members remember what National members told us in 1990 and 1999? 
I am also thinking of the rates rebate scheme which is proving to be very popular. It was opposed by National members though goodness knows what their view is now. They want to tell everybody anything they want to hear. So I suppose that because the rates rebate is popular they are now in favour of it even though they voted against it. It is just as well there is no electoral integrity legislation in front of Parliament any more because people who get elected on one platform by saying they are against things and then get into Parliament and say they are for those things disenfranchise the people who voted for them. That behaviour from National members was a good example of that. 
The rates rebate scheme which we have to try to administer more efficiently for older people has to go into that category as well. I think also that the KiwiSaver scheme which will be a saving scheme lasting over a person’s whole working life might be something that can be tied in with the SuperGold card. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear my friend from New Zealand First say it is a great scheme. I think it is a great scheme. We have to address the problem of people not saving enough in New Zealand. For every dollar a household earns it is spending $1.18. We have to come up with some smart policies to try to turn that round for New Zealand. That is very important. 
I remember the last election campaign when I campaigned on the KiwiSaver scheme. I said that for every person who joined the scheme the Government would kick in a thousand bucks to help that person get started on his or her savings. I remember members of the National Party at that election campaign saying they were against KiwiSaver. I remember debating on it with John Key in the House. He said it was so silly because it meant that one’s pool boy could get a KiwiSaver scheme. I thought that not many New Zealanders I know have a pool boy but that remark tells members about the Parnell side of things. But the link with the KiwSaver and the SuperGold card is quite important in terms of the savings people are able to make over their lives. 
This bill delivers actual benefits to older people. It is a very good thing. The reason a card is needed is as a means to keep all the data so that one can be sure of what is being said. With the flip-flops coming out of the National Party on every single policy I think every citizen should have one of these cards to keep track of where National is on all these sorts of things—so ridiculous are they in what they are doing. 
 What the Government is saying is that it will guarantee that people will retire at 65 and it will guarantee that people will get at least 65 percent of the average wage going forward—and I acknowledge the fact that it is 66 percent at the moment with the confidence and supply agreement. It is important that these things are guaranteed for older people. Unfortunately members such as David Carter vote to cut the pension. I am afraid it is pretty hard to take him seriously when it comes to dealing with older people. I know about that bunch over there; any time they have the chance they will vote to sock it to older people. I am not saying that because I am being unkind or ungenerous about them— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s their record. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: —but because that is their record. I am sorry that so many new National MPs know so little about National Party history but the reality is that whenever they are confronted with that choice that is what they do. By voting for the third reading and putting into legislation the SuperGold card we are protecting that entitlement for older people and making sure that no Tory can ever do the old people in again. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment be now read a third time.  
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2; 
Bill read a third time.