Roy Heather: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Roy Heather: Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:639;Page:9208] 
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.