Winston Peters is right

Guardrails against digital overreach are just common sense

New Zealand First has once again stepped into a debate most politicians would prefer to ignore, and this time it’s over digital driver’s licences and IDs. On the surface, the issue might sound small – a simple update to let people carry their licence or proof of age card on their phone instead of in their wallet. All six parties in Parliament supported the Government’s bill when it was introduced, including NZ First. However, Winston Peters has now tabled his own legislation, and it’s worth taking a closer look.

Peters’ bill would make it mandatory for organisations to continue accepting hard-copy passports, driver’s licences, 18+ cards and other physical forms of identification. Businesses that refuse and try to go digital-only could face fines of up to $50,000. Peters wants to ensure that no one is ever forced into a digital-only world.

The Government has already promised physical licences will stay. Transport Minister Chris Bishop insists the reforms are simply about choice, with both digital and physical options remaining available. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has described digital IDs as “common sense.” But anyone paying attention knows how these things usually play out. First it’s optional, then it’s “preferred,” and eventually those who stick with the old system are treated like second-class citizens.

This is why Peters’ proposal matters. It isn’t “anti-digital” – nobody is saying people shouldn’t be able to use their phone if they want to. What it does is lay down clear guardrails that protect personal choice and privacy, and prevent future governments or corporations from quietly edging New Zealanders into digital-only systems. It’s about protecting the elderly who aren’t tech-savvy and those who simply don’t want their entire identity tied to a device.

Of course, Peters’ bill has virtually no chance of becoming law. The political establishment has already locked in behind the Government’s approach, and they’ll dismiss his proposal as unnecessary. It’s precisely this kind of “belt and braces” thinking that shows why NZ First still plays an important role in Parliament. Where others are content with vague promises, Peters is demanding enforceable protections.

In an age where governments around the world are increasingly enthusiastic about centralised digital identity systems, it’s refreshing to see a party willing to push back. NZ First is asking the right questions: Who controls the data? What happens when systems fail? And why should New Zealanders be coerced into digital systems at all?

Even if this bill doesn’t pass, it sends an important message: New Zealanders deserve the right to choose, without fear of being nudged or pressured into compliance. That’s not anti-technology – that’s common sense.