O'Connor Simon: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Simon: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10035. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I want to take one quick issue with the member Jacinda Ardern who was asking a whole series of questions as to why small businesses have issues. I would actually just encourage her to go out and talk to small businesses. It is one of those novel things that MPs can do—one of those really strange things I have to say. I find it myself as I move through the electorate of Tāmaki where there are a number of small businesses. From time to time people will ask questions and ask what it is about. The funny thing is that by having them ask a question and you feeding back they are usually quite comfortable with it because as has been noted in the purpose of this bill it is a chance for businesses to better engage with Government agencies but it is important too for business to engage with each other.I do not want to get too bogged down on where the primary discussions have gone. Most people have been focusing on clause 28 and referring to Ria Bond’s amendment. I think that has almost been done to death. I think that fundamentally we are not a Government that is about compelling Government agencies to act in a certain way in this particular circumstance. Importantly when we start saying as the amendment does that all Government agencies must use the New Zealand Business Number we are not talking simply about the likes of say the Ministry of Social Development or the police we are talking about every school we are talking about every State-owned enterprise and so forth. That is becoming incredibly unwieldy and unnecessary. My colleague Brett Hudson earlier highlighted something as well. There is a huge cost here if every Government agency every school and everything connected to the Government has to start overhauling its system for the sake of just—well a desire of the Opposition to have it for the sake of it. The bill is very clear and again as it has always been drafted—and I should point that out; it is as it has always been drafted—a Government agency may use it.Look where I want to focus though is really around the issue of privacy. It is about how we access the register. One thing that came up quite early from submitters was the question of how information was going to be protected and who was going to have access to that information. Importantly first and foremost the register is looked after by a registrar who is going to be appointed through this bill and through I think the State Sector Act so that is all pretty normal. That person—he or she—will have oversight and ultimately the information within it is fairly limited.In fact if we turn to schedule 3—and I am sorry to indulge the Committee but I think it is quite important. Some people who came before the select committee or who were in conversations were very much concerned that huge amounts of information were going to be given out. What we are talking about is the legal entity’s name any trading name—I mean that is pretty normal again. If people who have an interest in a small business would like to go out often there is the use of a trading name—I thought I would just help out a member there—a registered address and a location identifier. That is quite important to someone who has studied geographic information systems years ago. Actually it is quite useful to have that for meshblocking and so forth. There has to be a start date for that entity and it has to say what kind of entity it is. So we are talking about pretty basic information there.The registrar has obviously enabled the person who provides that information to access it to update it and to make sure it is accurate. They are also allowing where required Government agencies to get hold of that information. I think it is really important in this case because there is often some fear about what the Government does and that a Government agency will actually—and the select committee spent a bit of time teasing this out. It can access that data first and foremost if another Act gives that Government agency the power to do so. OK? So a Government agency cannot access your business number simply because it wants to; it must not only want to but also be enabled and authorised by an existing Act.There is then a secondary clause that allows that entity—that Government agency if you will—to approach the registrar and explain its reasons. The entity itself—this is in clause 27(1A)(b) which says that “the NZBN entity has consented in the manner determined by the Registrar to the government agency accessing …”that data. Look it is a small point but a really fundamental one that again limited information is being shared. A Government agency is able to access it if another Act already in force authorises that and in other circumstances the entity must authorise it.Importantly in all of this the select committee heard from the Privacy Commissioner and from the Government Chief Privacy Officer. They submitted to the committee that evidence was weighed up and my understanding is that they are pleased with the provisions set out in that regard. Ultimately this is a register. It has to have a degree—