Ardern Jacinda: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Jacinda: New Zealand Business Number Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 30 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:10045. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): And fair enough too that you check whether the Government might like to make a contribution on this bill.I want to speak specifically to Part 2 clause 29. This specific clause empowers Ministers by Order-in-Council to make a recommendation to the Governor-General that would authorise a Government agency to require an eligible entity or class of eligible entity to register for a New Zealand Business Number. This does go to the heart of some of the substantive debate that we have had in this Committee this afternoon around at what point and to what degree do you compel agencies to adopt the New Zealand Business Number in order for it to achieve its stated goals. I spent my first contribution talking about the fact that in order to achieve the purpose clause—to reduce transaction costs for business and to improve costs for the Government as well—we actually need a wide-ranging number of Government agencies and entities to take up the New Zealand Business Number and the Government’s reluctance to put a time line around that really will destabilise the ability of this bill to achieve its goals.Clause 29 though does allow—does empower to a certain degree—the Government to kind of compel that to happen. Under clause 29(2) it states: “Before making a recommendation under subsection (1) the Minister must—(a) consult the Privacy Commissioner …”—obviously taking into account privacy effects—“and (b) have regard to the following matters: (i) the advantages and disadvantages for eligible entities of the authorisation; and (ii) the potential effects of the authorisation on the government agency’s costs.” But I am disappointed not to see consideration given there to the cost to business of an agency or entity not taking up the New Zealand Business Number. We are concerned here in this clause around the costs to an agency but not to business and yet it is cost to business that drives the entire purpose of this bill. That seems to me to be a drafting oversight. If we are going to do a cost-benefit analysis on whether or not an agency or entity should be compelled to take up a New Zealand Business Number and we are interested in the cost to an agency but we are not on the flip side interested in the cost to business that seems again slightly counter to the stated purpose of the bill.I also wanted though to raise a submission which has not been discussed up until now by a group called GS1 New Zealand. For those of you who are not familiar with GS1 I will read directly from its submission: “GS1 New Zealand is a partner of the Government for the NZBN Registry. NZBN identifiers are GS1 Global Location Numbers (GLNs provided by GS1) and we have been very involved in the consultation process and implementation for the NZBN. Under the partnership with the Government all public data from the NZBN registry is mirrored into GS1 New Zealand’s registries and thereby syndicated out around the world.”GS1 New Zealand represents over 5000 organisational members and it submitted to the New Zealand Business Number discussion document. It is a partner to Government in delivering the New Zealand Business Number and obviously fundamental to the implementation of this bill. With the fact that it syndicates out more broadly it is more than just a partner; it is a delivery mechanism. It set out in its submission some specific views on clause 29 which I have just referred to. It stated: “Our view in alignment with our Point 1 above that agencies should be encouraged to mandate the use of a NZBN in transactions with business as early as practically possible.”—as early as practically possible. It identifies uptake as being one of the key turning points on how well this piece of legislation and this whole policy will work. As I have said it is not just an interested party; it is a partner essentially in the delivery of the New Zealand Business Number.I think that we have really used the Committee stage to highlight (a) the potential we see but (b) the pitfalls with this piece of legislation.Part 1 agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr David Clark to the proposed amendment in the name of Ria Bond to clause 28 be agreed to:After “A government agency must” insert “ within two years of the Act coming into force”.