Nash Stuart: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I would like to talk about clauses 24 25 26 and 27.Simon O’Connor: What about 28?STUART NASH: Well we can do 28 if we have got time. Let us wait and see. These clauses basically talk about the difference between public primary business data versus other primary business data. What we have here is two different types—two different levels—of data that have to be collected on the register. There are some questions that I have got.Clause 24 basically says that the registrar must keep and operate a register. That makes sense. I mean it is part of the bill—it is just how things are done. But clause 25 says “Public primary business data … must be available for access and searching by members of the public at all times”—OK that makes a lot of sense. If we go to Part 1 of schedule 3—I only want to talk about corporate and public entities here—it outlines the sort of information that must be registered. It is the sort of stuff that should be found on any business website—you know your name your trading name your address your location identifier obviously the number start date and type of entity. But there is one question that I have got here: in clause 25(2) it actually says: “The Registrar may refuse access to the register or otherwise suspend the operation of the register in whole or in part if the Registrar thinks that it is not practical to provide access to the register.”What does that actually mean? Under what circumstances would the registrar say: “Look it’s just not practical for me to provide this access therefore I’m not going to.”? I would have thought there would be at least some sort of test as opposed to just saying that it is not practical. Does that mean you know it is 4.30 on a Friday and I am about to go home it is not practical? I am unsure what that means; it is a little confusing.The other thing that I would also like to talk about is that we have got public primary business data then there is also other primary business data. This is the data that must be provided but can be accessed only by Government departments. The thing that strikes me as a little bit skew-whiff about this is that after 2008 and the global financial crisis when a whole lot of entities fell over due to you could argue negligent business practice the Parliament passed a whole lot of legislation that made investing a lot more transparent. It was recognised that OK there is business risk in any sort of investment but one of the risks that investors should not have to deal with is that of negligence or dishonesty. But here the sort of information that the public does not have access to is the sort of information that I would have thought the public should have access to.The other thing is that it is called “Other primary business data” and it is in Part 1 of schedule 3A. It is things like GST status postal address and physical address. It is not onerous. There is nothing that I would have thought would be proprietary in this—it does not contain any sort of intellectual property or anything that I would have thought a business’ competitors could look at and go: “Ah now I know a lot more about this and I can mount some sort of competitive—or I can gain some sort of competitive advantage.” But the thing that gets to me a little bit is if we go to clause 27—this is “Government agencies’ powers relating to register”—subclause (1) says “A government agency may access and use any public primary business data contained in the register” which is absolutely fine because according to this bill any member of the public can do that. But then we go down to subclause (1A) “A government agency may access and use any other primary business data”—so this is the confidential stuff—“contained in the register … if (a) an enactment other than this Act authorises the agency to collect that information;”.I would have thought if someone is operating a business and they are going to be part of this—because this is supposed to make it easy between businesses relating to Government etc.—then the business would want to know what enactments apart from this legislation could be covered under this. I would have thought that at least in one of the schedules it could outline the other enactments or the other pieces of legislation under which a Government agency would be likely to access this data because if I looked at this it just provides no information whatsoever.It also says that if a New Zealand Business Number “entity has consented in the manner determined by the Registrar”—fine no problems with that. If you consent to give information to a Government department then there are no problems whatsoever. But I just would like—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Urgh! Stuart Nash.STUART NASH: Gee it is a hard choice is it not? It must be riveting that people want to hear what else I have got to say. I would have thought that what we need to do and what we should be looking to do with all legislation that pertains to making business easier—interactions between Governments and business and between businesses and businesses—or what the No. 1 test is: (a) how transparent this is and (b) how it is going to drive efficiency. As my colleague Kris Faafoi pointed out yes the purpose of the bill is actually noble. I mean of course businesses want to be able to interact with Government agencies in a way that creates efficiency and of course businesses want to be able to interact with other businesses in a way that minimises cost and creates efficiency. But the thing that I would have thought we would have in here something about transparency because it is not just the businesses and Government agencies that need the information it is also potential investors and current investors who I think now require or demand a level of information that allows them to make informed decisions. And I think that by saying that they are not allowed access to Part 1 of schedule 3A—“Other primary business data”—it just goes against what we have been trying to do as a Parliament since 2008 or certainly 2009 when legislation came in that made companies more accountable to their investors.The last thing I would just like to reiterate is that I just cannot figure out what other pieces of legislation may be enacted that would require a Government agency to download the information here. I would have thought again in the interests of transparency that at least some or all of the legislation—because there cannot be that much—would be outlined in a schedule so that the transparency exists both for the business and to be fair for the other Government agencies. The last thing a business wants to find out is that the Inland Revenue Department or the Department of Labour or some other Government agency has in fact accessed its data and the entity has not given it permission to do that. A business wants to know under which piece of legislation a department has been able to gain access to this data. So transparency must be a cornerstone of all legislation that pertains to business information. Thank you very much.