Bond Ria: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBond Ria: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10032. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RIA BOND (NZ First): I just want to remind the member Brett Hudson that when the New Zealand Business Number Bill was originally written it actually had it in there that it was mandatory for all Government agencies to belong to and to uptake the New Zealand Business Number legislation. It was written that way but it was actually removed from the bill recently so what you have said just now is absolutely not right at all.I want to say that it has been no secret that New Zealand First has supported the intent of this bill and what the purpose of this bill will actually achieve but what we had issues with were areas of the bill that identified risk with privacy for businesses. It also identified the fact that not all Government agencies have come along and collectively agreed to be on the uptake of the New Zealand Business Number legislation. So I am actually really happy after looking through the bill reading through areas and trying to ensure that when we in this House set legislation we are mindful and make sure that we are not going to be here in a year’s time amending this bill again. My gut instinct is because of the good intent of the bill let us get it right. Let us get it right. Let us actually make the provisions for all Government agencies to have a time frame to bring their IT systems up to date.I have spoken to IT specialists and they have said that some of the error was mostly because of the limited time 28 days after the Royal assent. It did not give them enough time so I am offering an olive branch with my amendment. I am offering that the word in clause 28 Part 2 change from being “may” to “must” as it was originally in the bill. As Dr David Clark has indicated this amendment is common sense. It says that we believe in your bill but let us take it from being a voluntary involvement which is absolutely pointless it would make this whole bill and the purpose redundant if that was the case. We are asking for the Government to show some support for its own bill and change the word from “may” to “must”. That is all I have asked for. I am not asking for the world. What I am saying is that we believe in the intent of your bill. Let us look at the amendment that I have put forward which makes sense and let us make the right choice so that we are not back here in 12 months’ time making an amendment to this bill.I want to add also the fact that the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand were really quite disappointed that this mandate under section 34 in the bill as previously written was removed. Their big concern like Dr Clark and like we had indicated in the first and second readings was the fact that this bill would run the risk of being another overhead to businesses and of not being fit for purpose—for the intent—because it had only a very small buy-in by Government agencies. In a responsible working world and even here in the House I and New Zealand First would like to think that when a good amendment comes along and actually helps endorse all Government agencies picking this up the Government would support that. I thank the Labour Party for supporting my amendment and Dr David Clark for doing an amendment on my amendment and I am looking forward to the Green Party supporting my amendment as well.I want to say that the intent is to cut the red tape it is to help small businesses medium businesses and also those sole traders cut back on their administration time. Productivity in small businesses and as a sole trader could only increase if this bill was to be passed in the House. Sole traders do not have time to sit on the telephone to do an address change with the Inland Revenue Department and wait on that telephone call for 10 minutes. If it is a salon working environment and you have got to quickly do that and you know you have got to do that the worst thing is that when you are doing a chemical service—there is a time frame within which you have got to take that chemical off. If you are waiting on the telephone and you have got to ring all the different Government agencies to change some details it is not good productivity and it is also a workplace health and safety issue.So the easiest way to explain this bill is with the fact that companies have been allocated the number since 2013 and this bill seeks to also encompass small businesses medium businesses and sole traders so that the achievement of cutting red tape of actually increasing business productivity is consistent across all sectors. I do believe that with my amendment we can achieve that. This is the one fish-hook that we are saying we would oppose this bill on. So in order to support the bill we would call for the Government to support the amendment as well. Thank you.