Nash Stuart: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeNash Stuart: New Zealand Business Number Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 12 April 2016. Volume:713;Page:10444. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): It is with a sense of irony that I note that the member Simon O’Connor stood up and criticised the New Zealand First member Ria Bond for an excellent speech that she gave because she read a prepared statement but spoke for 10 minutes—I think it was a very enlightening speech—when the member himself stands up says absolutely nothing and sits down after 3 minutes.Kris Faafoi: Was it 3?STUART NASH: Was it 3 or was it 2½? There is a word beginning with “h” that we are not allowed to use in this House but I think that everyone knows what it is.There is absolutely no doubt that making it easier for businesses to deal with Government departments and Government agencies etc. is a very admirable outcome. It is a very admirable outcome and if we can achieve that it would be fantastic but one thing that I would say is that simply saying it will happen does not mean that it will happen. Simply putting a piece of flawed legislation in does not mean it will happen. The thing about this Government that I am increasingly seeing is that it does not walk the walk. It talks the talk: those members come in here and say “We’re business-friendly we want to cut red tape we want to make things easier for businesses to get on with Government and we want to make the interaction easier.” But it is just not happening.We had a bill here that was supported by every political party but there was a problem in that bill. The problem in that bill was that companies were required to do something but Government departments were not. When that happens the trust that needs to be built up between business and Government will just not happen. Ria Bond and Dr David Clark put forward a very helpful suggestion that said “Hey do you know what we understand what this bill is trying to achieve; we understand the necessity actually of making it easier for businesses to deal with Government” because in this day and age things move at such a pace that if the information flow is in real time then I believe it will make it easier.The tax department is right—the Inland Revenue Department is spending $1.3 billion on something called business transformation. It is a system that is going to make it—I hope and I believe—a lot easier for taxpayers to fill in tax returns and interact with the Inland Revenue Department. It is what we need in the 21st century. But if a bill like this is put in place and there is no time frame or there is no requirement for Government agencies to aptly implement this then why would business do it? Why would business say: “OK I can see a benefit here but the Government cannot see a benefit.”? It has got to be a two-way process. One of the absolute privileges of being in this House is passing legislation that can make things easier for everyone. This bill could have done this—it could have done it. It is a real missed opportunity and it is such a shame.In my experience there are three variables that businesses like to operate with whether it is supply whether it is in the private sector whether it is the Government sector whether it is domestically or whether it is overseas. One of these variables is that they have got to build up trust. That is the supplier or the customer or the client has got to do what they say they are going to do. The second thing is integrity. This comes down to the honesty of process. Trust is a subset of integrity but it means slightly different things. It is slightly more than “I say what I am going to do”; it is: “You can trust my people you can trust the processes I am a good taxpayer I do what I say I am going to do but also I get things done and let’s work together in a constructive way.” The third one is transparency.There is no point in introducing a bill like this and taking up the time of the House—I hope that we are not boring you Mr Barclay; I see you yawning in the back there but as a young pup you could actually learn some stuff about this. I would suggest that when that member goes and talks to the businesses in his electorate—because he cannot talk to them out of experience because he has none—he actually asks businessmen and businesswomen what they want from Government. As opposed to saying “We know what you want.” how about you ask them: “What would you like?”. I will tell you what those businesses would like—because I have worked in a number of businesses large and small—they will say: “Let us have a two-way relationship.”This is what businesses actually want: they actually do want to interact with Government. Believe it or not they want their tax to be easy they want red tape cut and they do not want to be sitting at the dining room table at 10.30 at night angsting over GST. If we can make it easier for businesses—and we have the potential to do this—then it will deliver the $60 million worth of savings or reductions in compliance costs. But when we put out this sort of bill which says “Businesses you have got to do this.” but there is no time frame for the Government to do it then all businesses do is go: “This is just another number. This is just another piece of compliance. This is just something else that the Government is throwing at me.”So instead of having the desired effect of reducing compliance what it actually does is it increases compliance. Instead of having the effect of saying “Wow the Government has come out with something that I get; this is 21st century engagement.” all it does is makes them say: “Oh goodness me—more information that the Government is going to collect about my business; more information that I am going to have to duplicate.” So it actually has the opposite effect of what the intention is. And that is a real shame—it is a real shame because this is the third bill that I have spoken on tonight where the Government had the opportunity to actually get it right and in three out of three bills it has missed it.I will tell you why I think this is the case: I think after 8 years it has sort of lost touch. It has become arrogant and has lost touch with what middle New Zealand wants. It has lost touch with what really drives business. It happens. Do not worry about it it happens after 8 years. It happened to the Clark Government it happened to the Bolger Government and it is happening to the Key Government. After 8 years you forget to go to business you forget to go to your key stakeholders and actually ask them what they would like to see and you believe that you have got all the answers—you believe that as a Government you know the answers and you can go to business and say: “See this is what you want.” Well I can tell you Government you have actually got it wrong. All you have done is create compliance for businesses when you had the opportunity to reduce compliance.When I look at the risk profile in the—Kris Faafoi: The regulatory impact statement.STUART NASH: —the regulatory impact statement the RIS—thank you Mr Faafoi—it talks about reducing compliance costs. That is the aim: “reduces costs to business government by enabling fewer more accurate business-to-business and business to Government transactions.” I do not think that there would be anyone in this House who would disagree with that aim. It is fabulous it needs to happen and it is what 21st century information technology should be able to deliver. What the regulatory impact statement does say which is quite surprising is: “However these benefits are not quantifiable as the NZBN is an enabler of opportunities it does not deliver these opportunities.”So what this basically says is that before any business is going to take this up they have got to see value. They have got to be able to see value and say: “OK I am going to go through this process proactively”—because it will take a bit of time and they are going to need to access websites and put in information—“because I see a significant amount of value.” But what I can say and what I would like to reiterate is that if the Government departments that a business liaises with are not part of this then the business will not see value. If a business has to have duplicate communications with different Government agencies then this is defeating the point of what this bill is trying to achieve. I guarantee that within the first 12 months of a Labour-led Government we will be going out to business and saying: “Hey you know what? The intent of this bill was right; let us put it right in legislation.”This bill came to the House with good intentions. It came to the select committee with good intentions. New Zealand First and Labour were trying to work with the Government with good intentions to get this right but because the Government knows best because it has become arrogant and it has lost touch with what the market actually wants we are now delivering a product that I very much doubt will get much uptake from business at all. This is another missed opportunity by a Government that is now out of touch and has forgotten how to ask the question: “How can we help you?”. Instead what it is doing now is saying: “We know best; this is what you want.” That is the wrong approach to legislation. I think this is a missed opportunity and that is a real shame. Thank you very much.