Turei Metiria: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8754] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to take just a short call on the second reading of this bill. At the first reading I raised a number of issues that the Green Party had with the SuperGold card. One of those issues was that this is effectively just a loyalty card and very similar to the type of loyalty card that businesses all around the country provide for their members in various forms and in various ways.  
We continue to question whether it is necessary to have legislation that establishes just another loyalty card that will incorporate existing schemes and perhaps might drive some new ones but which really has limited benefit in that respect. But at the same time it was an issue that was part of the deal between New Zealand First and the Government so I can understand why it is now in legislation. But really we could be doing more important things for superannuitants in terms of protecting their interests. One of the key areas where we could do that and one that the Greens and New Zealand First agree on and have both worked on in the past is the elimination of the exemption that allows for some superannuitants to have their superannuation means tested against income they receive from some overseas pensions. There has been a petition to the House on that issue. There continues to be a great deal of lobbying and involvement on that issue from Grey Power and from other organisations that represent older people’s issues.  
If we are to have a truly non - means-tested superannuation there is no justification for these few people to have their income means tested for a superannuation scheme that they are involved with have worked for and have been part of when they lived overseas. There has never been any good reason for it and it could be dealt with very simply by a rather small amendment to the legislation to make sure that the superannuation really is non - means tested as it is said to be. That would be a better use of legislation and a better use of this House’s time rather than this loyalty card.  
I hope that between New Zealand First and the Greens we can progress this further with the Labour Government. It really is unnecessary to have such an exemption. It is unfair for those older people who have worked very hard for those pensions overseas. They are entitled to them and deserve to have access to that money and to their entitlement in New Zealand to New Zealand superannuation.  
The other issue we raised was microchips and whether it was justifiable that this legislation should include microchipping. At the time it was rather amusing given the other microchipping issues that were going on but there is real concern still within the Green caucus as to whether a provision allowing for the future use of microchips for this particular card is the appropriate way to deal with that issue. I know from my colleague Sue Bradford who was on the select committee that heard the discussion and dealt with the issues in the bill—on my behalf because I could not attend—that there was intense discussion at select committee level about this. 
 The issues were canvassed widely and for some time. But at the end of the day if we are to enact legislation there is still a question of making sure that it is useful that it is the right thing to do and that all of the issues around the legislation have been dealt with properly. We would much prefer to see a review of or an inquiry into the use of microchips. A number of our caucus members are very keen to see such a thing so that where these bits of technology are in use it is in a context of considered principles around their use. A great deal of consideration should be given to the privacy implications of microchips and real protections should be put in place for people for whom this technology might be used.  
I am aware that the bill has clear protections against which microchip information could be used. For example the bill states that a microchip would include only the information already included on the card—that is the cardholder’s name the identifying number assigned by the department the commencement and expiry dates of the card and the kind of information that is very specific to the use of the card itself. The issue with microchips is that other information can be placed on them quite easily in the future. The legislation might confine that information now but later legislation may expand it and provide for greater use of microchips in these contexts. That is not necessarily what was intended with this particular card.  
A number of our caucus members still have real concerns about the bill and at the Committee stage we will be looking to see whether we want to support the calls by some other parties to take out that clause or whether an amendment might be more appropriate. Or perhaps we may consider that it might be OK to leave the bill as it is but with some kind of intention from other parties in the House to hold some inquiry into or to debate the use of that technology to find ways of confining its use to only those absolutely necessary requirements and principles. We look forward to that debate in the Committee stage and to the bill’s later debate. It is certainly not a clear issue for us at this stage and we offer no guarantees for future votes. We will be looking very carefully at what happens in the next few weeks. Kia ora.