Bond Ria: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBond Ria: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10441. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]RIA BOND (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take this third call in the House tonight on the New Zealand Business Number Bill which is for the National-led Government a very important piece of legislation that seeks to promote innovation and business. New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill which is primarily to enhance the Government’s initiatives aimed at achieving Better Public Services result No. 9: to achieve better business commitment by reducing the business costs from effort in dealing with Government by 25 percent by 2017. It aims to reduce the businesses’ red tape for eligible entities and it also aims to increase or lift the productivity of businesses so therefore there is less time stuck on the phone trying to make contact with Government agencies and more time spent working in their businesses especially for sole traders who work not only in their business but also on their businesses as often they are the only ones who are actually within their business. And it also ultimately aims to increase the cost savings to businesses.I am disappointed in the National Government members across the House who took calls in the Committee of the whole House on this bill because a good amount of content on talking to this bill was merely—well it was simply a mechanical delivery with very few impressive details coming out of the calls. That showed that those members did not fully understand the total effects of this bill and did not understand why my amendment would have helped to assist the Government to incorporate those Government agencies to adopt the New Zealand Business Number Bill. That showed the lack of care for ensuring that legislation set down in this House is fit for purpose and the intent of this bill particularly could have been achieved with my amendment.I want to say that I noted that in her opening statement tonight Minister Judith Collins mentioned the fact that the Government does not have complete buy-in from the nine agencies that are required to actually adopt the process to interact with the aim and intent of this bill. I just want to add that that is still putting the cart before the horse because what the Minister failed to give this House and New Zealanders who are actually in business in this country was a time frame by which the agencies would be required to come into line and adopt the system so it can be interactive and it can actually aim to complete the intent of this bill and not just become another wasted resource.What this Government failed to do in all of its members’ calls taken in this House was to back itself. It also failed to back small to medium sized enterprises. It failed to back sole traders. It failed to back trusts and incorporated societies. And that in itself showed the absolute failure to back its very own Government agencies and to say that this was indeed a good sound bill that would achieve its intent and purpose. It was simply a farce.Let us remember that during my Committee call—and I do understand Mr Assistant Speaker that you have given a ruling to remind us that we cannot dwell too much on what is lost—I provided the Government support for this bill from my amendment. It amended clause 28 which reads: “Government agencies may use NZBN”. For me it was quite simple to change that clause to “Government agencies must use NZBN”. I knew when I introduced that amendment to the Committee that not all 880 agencies would be able to pick that up. I knew that and I understood that. The rationale for my amendment was to help assist the Government and Government agencies to become part of the single portal system if that use is in accordance with the purposes of this legislation. Dr David Clark amended my amendment to provide the grace of time to allow the Government agencies to become part of the successful implementation of this bill.Let us remember that when the Government originally presented this bill to the House the intent of this Government was to have all of the Government agencies included in this business number roll-out—it would be mandatory. New Zealand First asks why this was removed from this bill. The only answer that I can see clearly is that this bill was poorly drafted and glaringly the Government did not understand the financial risk to its own Government agencies. The reason that fundamentally the Government has failed to ensure its own agencies are kept up to speed at the administration and IT level is it has continually underfunded core expenditure to ensure robust clean efficient systems are regularly maintained. That should have been a strong focus and that really is the fundamental reason why all of a sudden clause 34 was stripped from this bill.Mandatory participation by the Government agencies should be required to ensure that the New Zealand Business Number does not become just another number another business overhead from another bill that has unintended consequences in inequality to entities and not Government agencies. Secondly it makes me question whether the Government was muscled by its own agencies to pull them out of the business number process. Did it bow to pressure? Was that why clause 34 was actually stripped from this bill? I say that that is embarrassing. I say that that is actually really embarrassing for this Government if that was the case. There is a formidable saying in the business world: “The devil is in the detail”. I can assure you that from this side of the House we are getting used to this National-led Government doing the exact opposite—the exact opposite—and not understanding just how devilish the detail is like in this poorly constructed bill.We heard from various submitters one of them being Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand which opposed the clause being removed for the very reasons that I have already alluded to in both my second reading speech and the Committee of the whole House stage. It said that the benefits for businesses may be overstated. As a former businesswoman myself I speak first-hand of the neglect this National-led Government has inflicted on small to medium sized businesses and sole traders which make a significant contribution to our economy. That is no secret and members of this House know this too.We have heard in this House that for a period of time businesses have been asking for a more streamlined secure easier process with which to interact with Government agencies and this bill goes part-way to allowing that. This bill is widening up the scope of catchment by including small to medium sized enterprises sole traders incorporated societies and trusts. I go back to the fact that New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill but without mandatory participation by Government agencies this bill will become another problematic one and we may be here again in a year’s time amending this bill again.I would also like to say that during the Minister’s speech earlier she mentioned that the agencies will be required within a length of time to hook into the system again. New Zealand First wants an answer: when will that be? Because a piece of string is quite long. How many times are we to see in the 51st Parliament or have we seen already unintended consequences like zero-hour contracts retrospective discoveries like paying back beneficiaries increased red tape—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Come back to the bill.RIA BOND: OK Mr Assistant Speaker. Too many times we have seen the 51st Parliament amend Acts that have not been fit for purpose. This National-led Government has had so many instances of poor administration that I have actually lost count of how many times we have had to do this. Just take the news this morning of confidential medical records being found scattered across a Christchurch street. That is more embarrassment—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part of the bill.RIA BOND: OK. On one hand this Government expects thousands of owner-operator businesses—in places like Invercargill where I come from—to upgrade their administration and IT systems to fit in with the New Zealand Business Number. The Government itself on the other hand has removed clause 34 which ensured that all Government agencies participated in the New Zealand Business Number process. I speak to constituents in Southland on a daily basis who are fed up with this Government’s neglect and I wholeheartedly agree with those constituents who tell me that this Government has an inability to really listen and to ensure that legislation that we progress in this House is fit for purpose and not a cost to businesses.I know it is simply not achievable as I said earlier to have all 880 Government agencies participate and adopt the New Zealand Business Number and to hook up into the online system. I know that and I knew that through the Committee of the whole House stage. The riddle in this particular bill for me is that when the Government introduced the New Zealand Business Number Bill to the House it actually had clause 34 inside of it. Those provisions meant that it would be mandatory for all Government agencies to participate in this bill.If Government agencies are so ill-prepared for the New Zealand Business Number that they are granted voluntary participation as the Minister clearly spoke to earlier with unplanned time frames I ask how it is fair to small and mediumsized enterprises that they are being forced into mandatory compliance within 28 days of the Royal assent. Enterprises like taxi operators like dairy owners like sharemilkers like hairdressers and like independent midwives—how is this bill fair for those sectors?In closing New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill for of all the reasons I have stated here tonight. It is not going to reduce red tape. It will delay significant recognition of the benefits to businesses using this bill. Thank you.