Turei Metiria: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:636;Page:6952] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has no problem with the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill in so far as it provides for an entitlement card for superannuitants to access better support services. It is a perfectly fine thing to do for them and to that extent the legislation is not really very much of a problem. We need to get a bit real about the fact that this is just a loyalty card like any other loyalty card. In fact one gets a huge number of loyalty cards from all sorts of places and businesses everywhere. It is an ID card not dissimilar to the Hospitality Association of New Zealand’s 18-plus card which is quite funny when I think about it. To have special cards for veterans is all very nice as well. 
But in effect this is a loyalty card that can be provided to those people in order to provide them with extra support and discounts for both commercially and publicly provided services. It is a great thing to provide that but to do so does not necessarily require regulation or legislation. I will talk about that point a little more because we are quite puzzled as to why legislation is being introduced. If members actually look at the bill they will find that it does not say anything about the gold card. It is a very very small bill with very few provisions which are extremely general and deal with other issues. 
We are most concerned about the fact that the Government and New Zealand First are using the establishment of what is a very good thing—this gold card—to put in place regulation-making powers that will enable the compulsory use of photographs and microchips on ID cards. Clause 4 states exactly that—that the purpose is to enable any cards to have photographs and embedded microchips. We have always been very concerned about these kinds of sneaky attempts to introduce electronic mechanisms to increase the capacity for Government surveillance of the public and for information sharing between agencies without conducting the proper public scrutiny and debate that those kinds of mechanisms need. I note that in Britain for example there has been a shift from the use of optional ID cards like this card ought to be towards a more stringent information-sharing system that makes photos or microchips compulsory. 
I do not believe that older people in our community want their advantageous mechanism—their gold card—to be used to potentially breach their rights of privacy. The card could interfere with their rights of privacy in terms of the information-sharing capacity that it provides. The provision in the bill is so generally worded that it could apply to virtually any Government ID or entitlement card and that includes things like the community services card. That is a very serious issue because the community services card is designed to help provide support for low-income people and beneficiaries. There is no doubt that we have a history in this country of treating low-income people as though they are a problem and as though they are criminals. A form of information sharing embedded microchips and surveillance capacity through those cards could therefore prove to be a real problem for those people. So this bill has serious implications that have nothing to do with the gold card because the bill is being used to introduce a mechanism for another purpose. 
We are very worried that the inclusion of the embedded microchip mechanism in this bill concerning the gold card will make the important public and human rights scrutiny of these provisions much less likely than it would otherwise be because few people will even begin to think that the bill about the gold card would include an information-sharing mechanism such as the embedded microchip. People will not know they should make submissions raise issues and talk to others about it because they would not expect this legislation to include those provisions. The fact is of course that the legislation is not necessary for the introduction of the card but is being used specifically to provide these mechanisms. We are very concerned about that. We will support the first reading of the bill so that that debate can be held on the issue but we offer no promises of support after that point because of our concerns about it. 
We are of the view that it has been a waste of New Zealand First’s efforts and priorities to have legislation developed for this card when that is completely unnecessary and when other legislative changes need to be made in order to better support older people in our community. One of those changes is an issue that New Zealand First feels as strongly about as we do and that is the repeal of section 70 of the Social Security Act. The fact is that superannuation is supposed to be free of income tests; in fact that is not the case. If a person receives a superannuation benefit from another country then a deduction is made from the New Zealand pension. So those people are subject to income testing of their superannuation. 
Frankly the fact is that as long as the income source is legal where that income comes from should be irrelevant. The principle is that superannuation is not to be income tested. That is a good principle to have because superannuitants are people who have made a significant contribution to our community and many of them rely solely on the pension for their income and live in dire low-income circumstances. It is not right that superannuation should be income tested but for those few people it is happening. It is true that a comparatively small number of people suffer from that income test but that is not a reason to keep such an anomaly in the law. If the principle is that superannuation should not be income tested then it should not be income tested. As I said New Zealand First completely agrees with that principle and has advocated for it before. Yet instead of making an effort to get the Government to change the law in that way which would have had a real beneficial impact on specific people it has instead put out legislation that is largely irrelevant and performs an entirely different function from the one that has been stated. This bill is not about the gold card at all; it is all about the potential for information to be shared between Government agencies and for an increase in public surveillance. 
We are very disappointed that New Zealand First has not prioritised its resources better. We do think the gold card is a great thing and we will support this bill going through its first reading. But we will be taking a very serious interest in what happens on the issue of embedded microchipping in terms of this bill. Thank you.