Smith Nick: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9144] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 A fundamental question needs to be answered about the SuperGold card. I quote directly from the report of the Social Services Committee. That report has been agreed to by the Government and by all parties. It states: “… the Government has no plans to incorporate a chip into the SuperGold Card”. Then when I pick up the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today I see that it states this: “New Zealand First says the cards would not be functional without microchips”. That is contradictory and I ask the Minister in the chair right now to clear things up. 
I ask Mr Peters whether a microchip is intended to be in the card. The silence is deafening. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I’ll answer you. I am speaking shortly; I’ll answer you. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Just a yes or no answer will do. New Zealand First on the front page of the paper is reported as saying one thing and the select committee is saying another. Before we can have an intelligent debate in this Committee we need to have the answer to that fundamental question. What sort of disrespect is the Minister in the chair showing the Committee when he will not answer a simple question? 
I will ask the Minister for Senior Citizens Ruth Dyson. Will the SuperGold card as the select committee was advised not incorporate a microchip or is it the case as the New Zealand First spokesperson said on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 that the card would not be functional without a microchip? Can Ruth Dyson answer that question? Can any member of the Government answer that question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will you yield? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: For a simple yes or no answer yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member will not be yielding for a simple yes or no answer. The member has made a statement that we are not prepared to debate this issue and I am happy to take up the rest of the member’s time. Sadly it is the case that the member has forfeited his right to speak in this debate—not in this debate but for the next 5 minutes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I sought the answer to a very important question; it is the most contentious question in this bill. We have contradictory reports from the select committee and from the New Zealand First spokesperson as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Now the Minister in the chair sought for me to yield. I was very specific. I said I was happy to yield for a yes or no answer. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: True. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He then in a smart alec way said he was going to use all my time. I do not think that is appropriate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No; no comments sideways. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I stand by my decision to yield in order to allow the Minister to simply clarify that point but that is all I am prepared to yield for. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In reply to that point of order let me say that the member is not afforded the liberty in a debate of saying to another member that he or she is confined to one sentence in reply. If the member yields then he yields the time that the other member reasonably takes to answer the question. That precedent has been set in other Parliaments and we still have it ourselves. If the member looks at the  
Hansard— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Just give us an answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member does not like it when he is shown to be inexperienced in this House although he has been here a long time. He arrived in 1990. I know that because I campaigned for him—I do not know why in hindsight. But he arrived here 17 long years ago. So my point is that having been given the right after a yield request I now want to speak. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This matter has been correctly raised as a point of order. It concerns a matter of procedure. [ 
Interruption 
] I will just take a few more words from Dr Smith on the point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I was very clear. The condition on which I yielded to the Rt Hon Winston Peters was that it was for a simple yes or no answer on the question of which report the Committee could reply upon in terms of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I am very clear on that. We have gone past that point now and the member has about 2 minutes left. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister in the chair cannot give a straight answer to save his life. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I asked for him to yield. He said he would. Now he having yielded I want my chance to avail myself of the opportunity he has afforded me to give him a reply. But there is no way a member can ask four questions and get one answer to all four—unless of course the member is Nick Smith and thinks like him. So I need a bit more time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Time is not in question here. It is just a matter of whom I give the call to. 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Speakers’ ruling 55/1 states: “When a member yields to another the member given the floor may refer only to the matter raised by the member yielding.” I believe that my colleague Dr Nick Smith is absolutely correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Both contributors have gone a fair way outside of that. I can give the call to anyone as I said before. Time is not an issue. The Minister in the chair may speak call after call after call in Committee and it is the same for Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The issue is very simple. I was on the select committee and received the advice of the officials. They told us two important things about this bill. They said the SuperGold card did not need to incorporate a microchip in order for it to be launched. They went even further than that; they said it was their view that not even within the next few years would it require a microchip. So why in a rush is Parliament expected to give approval for microchip technology for the SuperGold card when it is not needed to launch it and is not needed in future but it is just the case that at some time in the future the officials might want to incorporate it? I have a very simple answer. At the time in the future when they want to they should come to this Parliament and put their case and we will consider it. 
The most important thing is this: did Mr Peters tell superannuitants at the 2005 election that the card would have a microchip? No. Did the Government when it introduced the bill say the card would include a microchip? No. Will Mr Field’s amendments give the 540000 superannuitants the opportunity to have a say on whether they want a microchip to be put in the card? Again the answer is no—it will not. 
So I simply say to the Minister that we do not need to have this sort of bad process. If the ministry wants to introduce a microchip at some time in the future then it should come to this Parliament with a bill and set out the reasons for it. This Parliament can then make a proper considered decision as to whether it is a good or a bad thing. We will not then have legislation by stealth in which in a rush to get the SuperGold card up and running we include a sneaky little clause to allow for a microchip when it is not needed.