Faafoi Kris: New Zealand Business Number Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: New Zealand Business Number Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3206. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Thank you very much for the chance to speak to this bill. I am looking forward to this bill going to the Commerce Committee because it has been some time since we have dealt with a piece of legislation of any weight—not that this piece of legislation is of any weight. As we have said on this side when you look at what it does and the 7 years of Government that this party has behind it and the fact that we are 2 weeks out from an election—Carmel Sepuloni: From a Budget.KRIS FAAFOI: —from a Budget sorry—I wish it was an election—shows just how tired this Government is. Two weeks out from the Budget this is as good as it gets—a plan to expand the national business number out beyond what has already gone out to the public. It is as Dr Clark said in his speech a laudable effort to try to make the interaction between business and Government as efficient as possible.We have heard from both sides of the House about what kinds of savings we are trying to get to make business interaction with the Government more efficient. But some of the numbers still need to be fleshed out. You have got to think of it in the context of what is being promised and what will actually be delivered. Steven Joyce in his opening remarks said that this piece of legislation will look to reduce the compliance cost of business by about $60 million. That is nothing to sniff at. It is a sizable amount of money.But I think small businesses in New Zealand 2 weeks out from a Budget are looking at more than the extension of the national business number programme. I think they will be scratching their heads and thinking: “My God. Is this all this National Party has 2 weeks out from an election?”.Carmel Sepuloni: From a Budget.KRIS FAAFOI: From a Budget—ha ha! I will get that right eventually.I would like to sympathise and empathise with some of the things that James Shaw has said because as he said in his speech as a freelancer—I have experienced being a freelancer as well—from time to time you can get slightly frustrated with the amount of red tape and interaction you have with Government departments. We will look to the select committee to flesh out I guess some more of the details as to what will be the real benefits to the sole traders to those other small businesses that this national business number may be extended out to. The select committee consideration will be very interesting.I also want to touch on something that Fletcher Tabuteau said. He talked about the lack of information and the abundance of redaction in the regulatory impact statement. That starts pretty early on in the regulatory impact statement. There is a table at point 5. For the benefit of those at home watching at 9.33 on Tuesday night the line above the table says: “The table below outlines the net benefits of the preferred options.” As you can see it has all been redacted. So maybe—Dr Megan Woods: Blankety-blank.KRIS FAAFOI: Yes in the words of Annette King it says: “Blankety-blank blank blank blank”. Those are the net benefits of the preferred options of this bill. What is so secret that the Government wants to redact even the net benefits of its preferred option of this bill? What is going on when the Government wants to redact the net benefits of this extension of a 13-number programme? You have got to ask some serious questions about that.There are also some questions that we will be asking around the costs that are incurred in this bill because we have heard that $60 million figure from Steven Joyce. But again in the regulatory impact statement—and if you will let me take some time to read point 127. For some reason the number 127 has been redacted but the point has not been redacted. I do not know what is so secret about the number 127. I will read it—I am assuming this is No. 127—below this redaction: “The benefits to business of the NZBN will only be realised when government agencies change their existing systems to allow centralised registration of businesses and maintenance of their business details through the NZBN system.” I will go on to the second page which says: “Government agencies will incur costs in making these changes. It is not possible at this stage to quantify these costs. In many cases it may be possible to absorb costs within planned upgrades of agency systems.”There are two questions I have here for when we get to the select committee consideration. Can we please get an idea of what it will cost to change the systems within the multitude of Government departments? If it is a huge cost and we are looking at saving roughly $60 million for these businesses or more then from my maths that simply does not make sense. There is a track record for this Government when it gets involved in multi-agency complicated changes to IT systems.Hon Todd McClay: That’s not true.KRIS FAAFOI: Well it is true. If you would like to dispute that get up and take a call. But it is true. This Government does not have a good track record. Let us look at some of the IT projects of note recently that it has bungled. The Inland Revenue Department—who is in charge of inland revenue? The member just over there who said: “That’s not true.”Chris Bishop: That’s not fair.KRIS FAAFOI: You might think it is not fair Mr Bishop but unfortunately it is true. It is true. I can see how the member might think that is unfair but unfortunately his actions and the actions of that ministry and his decisions are going to cost the New Zealand taxpayer millions more which they should not have to pay. There are also other things that have been mentioned by other speakers and I would like to talk to the point around privacy. This regulatory impact statement also talks to that.Again and I am talking about the rolling out of IT programs this Government does not have a good track record when it comes to the privacy of the private information of New Zealanders. What department is that? Oh it is Todd McClay’s department again the Inland Revenue Department. Of course it let a whole spreadsheet list go—just flicked out in an email the details of hundreds of New Zealanders and their Inland Revenue Department details. The department just nonchalantly emailed them out into the public. Then of course there was the Ministry of Social Development. Someone just wandered into one of the offices went to the publicly available booth and helped themselves to a lot of information. There are some serious questions that need to be asked in the select committee consideration around the safeguards and the privacy of information to make sure that this Government is getting right because in the past it has got it so so wrong.This bill as I said tries to achieve a laudable aim in trying to make the interactions of businesses and Government departments more streamlined so they can save money and therefore invest more money pay their staff more or enjoy more profit. The example of New Zealand Post has been raised by a number of speakers on that side of the House. I just want to take this opportunity to talk about one local example of where this Government is saying one thing and is doing another. I held a public meeting recently about the future of the Raumati Beach PostShop which this Government wants to close down.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to invite the member to bring his point back to this bill.KRIS FAAFOI: I will. In the front seat of that public meeting was a local businessman who wants to make his life easier with a State-owned enterprise New Zealand Post. But this Government in demanding more of a profit from New Zealand Post is forcing the likes of community post shops in my electorate in Raumati Beach—which is not the strongest Labour safehold area in my electorate. In fact the businessman who spoke to me saying “Well done for bringing up the issue.” said he did not vote for us but he is unhappy with this Government and the fact it is extracting more profit out of New Zealand Post and closing down a very important piece of infrastructure in his community the local post shop so now he will not be having that efficient interaction—