Curran Clare: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10040. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This is the Government that in 2012 when Microsoft—with which this Government has major contracts in every Government agency for the computers that run in every Government agency—announced that a software program called XP was going to run out and they were going to stop servicing it and were going to bring in other programs this Government basically ignored that direction and did very little about it. When it came to 2014 when the actual servicing by Microsoft ran out there were 20000 computers in district health boards and more than 20000 across Government agencies that were still running a software product that Microsoft no longer serviced which meant that they were vulnerable to attack.If that does not give you an indication of how this Government approaches big IT projects managing across agencies—something that should be quite simple to manage and it could not even do that. When you look at the Cabinet papers that came out on that issue they said it was too hard because it was about managing across agencies. What this Government cannot do is manage big projects across agencies and what we have before us in the Committee today is a piece of legislation that has been put forward and the work has not been done. The work has not been done to prepare the groundwork for how something like a New Zealand Business Number which on paper and in concept seems to be a not too difficult concept to get your head around could actually be put into practice.When this bill came to the Commerce Committee it had a clause in it—clause 34—that mandated all Government agencies to introduce a New Zealand Business Number. This side of the House all of the Opposition parties that sat in the select committee agreed that the intent of this bill was good that it was sensible that ultimately it should be done. And yes there was discussion about how that would ensue and what sort of mechanism would be used but we supported that. When the bill came back to the House mysteriously that clause disappeared and was replaced with clause 28 which says that Government agencies may use the New Zealand Business Number. We hear through other contributions in the Committee this afternoon as to why that is the case: it was all going to be too hard and the work had not been done.So we have two amendments that have been put up this afternoon. One is from Ria Bond—I congratulate you on the amendment that you have put forward. The other one is by my colleague David Clark. Both of those amendments deal with the two flaws that are in this bill. The two flaws in this bill are No. 1 that there is no mandate for Government agencies to adopt this legislation which does make it a farce and No. 2 that there is no time line for any process for this to occur. So it could be that in 10 years’ time we see that many of the agencies the Government departments have not gone ahead and taken up this legislation. So it does seem to be rather a farce.In the discussion and the submissions on this bill in the select committee there were numerous submissions from agencies and from the private sector that asked for this bill to apply to all Government agencies and for that to be mandated in the bill. That was fair enough. That was absolutely fair enough. If the private sector is being required to institute a business number why then is the public sectornot? We had numerous debates on whether there should be any exemptions within the private sector and what those exemptions should entail but when it came to the public sector that clause disappeared and it became as if it was all too hard.I want to actually list what some of those agencies said. Business Central and the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce said that they were concerned that the intent of the New Zealand Business Number may be undermined if Government departments continued to use their own business identifier numbers. There must be a smooth transition and the use of dual numbers should not be a barrier to full implementation. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand as we have heard earlier said that it was disappointed that clause 34 in the exposure draft of the bill had been removed from the bill. Federated Farmers said “as many government agencies as possible should adopt the [New Zealand Business Number] as soon as practicable.” GS1 New Zealand said “it is critical … that [Government] agencies commit to and meet published timetables for implementation of” the New Zealand Business Number. The New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry said “government departments should transition … into this system once implemented” and it cautioned against a “staggered approach”.These are heavy hitters yet basically the advice from officials was that this was outside the scope of the bill as it was emerging through the Commerce Committee and that it would now be implemented through Government directives. The problem is that this is a piece of legislation that went through extensive discussions and it has come back watered down and you could even use the word neutered—neutered—as a result. And what it shows is that there is a veneer of organisation from this Government. Behind it lies the lack of preparation. I think this bill has had three maybe four Ministers who have carriage of it. I do not think there has been any strategy that has gone on behind it and that is a real shame.And it is not the only piece of legislation like this; my colleague David Parker referenced other legislation. The Harmful Digital Communications Act is another example of a piece of legislation passed by this Government in seemingly a hurry. It implemented a new criminal offence for people in the cyber environment and cyber-bullying but one of the major parts of the legislation is the creation of an approved agency and a means by which parents particularly—people who have got children who are being bullied online—can go somewhere. But they are unable to and it is nearly a year since that legislation passed.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to the bill.CLARE CURRAN: The relevance Mr Chair is that it is another example of the Government not being prepared when it brings a piece of legislation to the Committee. It has not done the work. The Harmful Digital Communications Act—that approved agency has still not been appointed. There is nowhere for parents to go for mediation when there has been cyber-bullying that has occurred.With this New Zealand Business Number Bill we have no idea as to when the public sector is going to fulfil the intent of this bill what the time line will be whether or not major Government agencies will actually take it on and when they will take it on. This is a problematic bill. What we have before us today is a neutered bill that does not fulfil the original intent.