New Zealand Business Number Bill

We on this side of the Chamber, in the Labour Party, intend to support the New Zealand Business Number Bill, but we have had reservations about the bill right throughout the process because, as was stated from the outset by the chartered accountants, there is a very real risk that the New Zealand Business Number becomes just another number and that this bill implements exactly the opposite of what is intended.

The intention, of course, is good. We believe in making interaction with Government as simple as possible for businesses, so that businesses can get on with doing what they do best: producing goods and services and, hopefully, exporting some of them for the wealth and prosperity of our country. So we support the intention of this bill. We want to be able to (a) enable businesses in New Zealand to interact more easily with Government, which is the stated purpose in the bill, and (b) reduce the cost of business transactions in New Zealand.

We want to support those intentions, those purposes, in the bill. However, our concern from the start has been that the Government has no clear plan as to how this is to happen, because it is asking only a few agencies to take this course of action. It is asking only a few Government agencies to step up and use the New Zealand Business Number as their primary number for contact with Government.

We on this side of the Chamber want to move an amendment. In fact Ria Bond, my colleague in New Zealand First, is going to move an amendment to the bill that would force the Government to use this business number, thereby achieving the purposes of the bill. Ironically, it takes the Opposition to suggest a course of action that actually achieves the purposes of the bill. But there we are—that is the Parliament we are with currently.

I intend to move an amendment to Ria Bond’s amendment—believe it or not; an amendment to an amendment—that will ensure that it is done in a time frame that is reasonable, so that over 2 years the Government has time to implement the purposes of this bill so that businesses can then have one number to deal with when they are dealing with Government. Those 2 years will give the Government sufficient time to pass any Budget measures required to enable departments to meet that challenge.

The Government tells us there will not be a great deal of cost, so I do not imagine that it will be a big deal, but we have learnt not to trust entirely what the Government says when it comes to IT programmes—we have seen what has happened at the Inland Revenue Department with child support legislation revisiting this House several times, and we have seen what has happened with privacy matters at several departments under this Government’s watch. So we will give them time to sort out their own affairs so that they come back to this House—sort out any budgetary matters and switches that need to happen, so that they can implement this bill and achieve the very purposes that are specified in the bill. That is, a single point of contact for all businesses with the New Zealand Government, in terms of having just one number—one number—that they need to use to interact with Government.

I expect this particular amendment that is being proposed, and with my modification, would also be supported by Federated Farmers, which in their initial submission made it very clear that they would like to see this expanded. They think that the initial list of Government departments, not including places like WorkSafe New Zealand or Immigration New Zealand, will hamper their efforts in dealing with the Government and therefore creating another number just creates more work for Federated Farmers members. I share Federated Farmers’ concern and I trust that they will be supportive of this amendment because it achieves the purpose that they have asked to have achieved in this bill.

Likewise, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand had a concern that this number that is being created “just becomes another number”, to quote them—just becomes another number—“rather than a replacement for the many current identifiers as is intended.” So I expect that, were it here, Chartered Accountants would support the amendment that is proposed, because it ensures that the bill’s purpose is achieved.

The Government in select committee looked very flat-footed when it was questioned as to why it would not happen quicker—as to where the plan was for this to be implemented. It had no clear answers as to how it would be ensured that this was not just another number for an indefinite period. There was no forthcoming explanation as to when and where the number would be universally adopted in Government.

This amendment that I am moving affects clause 28. Ria Bond’s Supplementary Order Paper says that “Government agencies must use NZBN”—that is the heading—“A Government agency must use the NZBN of an entity (including using it in addition to, or substitution for, any other identifier the Government agency may use for that agency) if that use is in accordance with the purposes of this Act.” My amendment to her amendment simply slots in after the words “a Government agency must” the words “within 2 years of the Act coming into force”. It gives the Government time to order its affairs, to make sure this change happens without the kind of embarrassment it had to face in respect of child support legislation where it had to come back to Parliament to change the very Acts it put through Parliament, because it was not able to deliver on them. So this gives the Government time to get its affairs in order; it gives the Government time to achieve the very purpose that it has set out in this bill, and to make sure that businesses are not hampered by yet another number when dealing with Government.

This slow implementation that will otherwise happen will incur additional cost for businesses, because we already know—and it is their very argument behind this bill—that too many numbers has an additional cost and an additional compliance component as businesses wrestle with the different parts of Government and the different numbers that are required, and so on. It also avoids the double jeopardy and the potential conundrum that arises if agencies wait for all businesses to adopt the number: if everyone adopts a wait-and-see approach—“Government doesn’t seem to be adopting it fast; we won’t adopt it fast”—and that kind of slow progress where the number falls by the wayside because Government agencies are not implementing it and people are not using it.

This is a very sensible amendment. I commend Ria Bond for putting it forward, and I will take some credit for ensuring that it does have the right time frame around it. Far be it for me to be a wallflower in this debate—but it is an important amendment and it does make sure that the bill achieves its own purpose. How ironic it is that the Government could be putting forward a bill that actually achieves the opposite of its own stated purpose; how ironic that we could be spending taxpayer money in the hundreds and thousands to put this bill through the House, with all of the parliamentary staff and all the MPs, and the costs attached to that, just so that the Government could achieve the opposite of what is laid down.

I look forward to the Government supporting Ria Bond’s amendment, with my amendment to it, because it is a sensible way forward. It ensures that the bill really does achieve what it sets out to achieve in making one point of contact—one number—for businesses to use when they interact with Government. It will reduce compliance costs. I expect it will keep Federated Farmers and Chartered Accountants happy in their requests, and rightly so. It is a very sensible thing to do: to reduce compliance costs, to support businesses to have more time to get on with the good things that they do to make our economy more prosperous.

So as I said from the outset we will support the bill and we trust that the Government will see sense and actually seek to implement the very bill and its purposes, as stated in its own propaganda.

Seeing as we are talking on the purposes and the intentions of this bill, I will just respond to Dr Clark’s contribution because I think it highlights a couple of very important pieces. One is, firstly, that both his amendment to the amendment and Miss Bond’s amendment highlight the fact that they do not actually understand the technology systems that are going to have to be upgraded and changed to actually give effect to a New Zealand Business Number. The other thing is that by trying to do it within 2 years, what he is saying is simply that the Government should be throwing money across every Government agency, in a really, really short period of time, to do something.

One of the things the New Zealand Government has done an excellent job of is delivering better public services, for the same or less public expenditure. What Labour is showing, just as it did with its ridiculous plan for a universal basic income, is just to say “Let’s spray money we don’t have at a perceived problem”, in the idea that you can just fire-hose it down and create a new outcome. Well, it simply will not work for them. So what Labour is saying is: “We’ll just throw a whole lot of money we don’t have to get agencies to derail their current IT programmes of work and to focus on this one thing right now, to do this tomorrow.” Whereas what a sensible approach would say is that we have a lot of Government agencies, and in order to interface with a single New Zealand Business Number system or an interface they are going to have to make changes to their applications—not one but probably several, and in some cases many—to be able to pass that information backward and forward and to be able to exchange it in a way that, as the member says, will actually work.

They can do all that now, instead of other work that is already on their IT programme, or they can do what a sensible business would do, which is they would actually integrate it as part of their programme of change. You see, businesses, including Government agencies, are not static things, particularly their technology systems. They do not just stay at one place, in one shape, for all time. They have change programmes already. Dr Clark just says they should completely derail them and move on to something new. It is, quite frankly, a ridiculous proposition and just shows the Labour Opposition is still not fit to govern.

The other point that Labour has made quite incessantly through the readings and the select committee deliberations on this bill is, why do we not just pick one number that an agency already uses. Anyone who perhaps has any experience of an IT system or two would realise that if they were to do that—and they could pick any particular agency’s identifier—because you are looking at an identifier to be used by all agencies, it would constrain what that one agency could do with what was originally its identifier; for instance, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) with the use of the IRD number.

It is an utterance, an idea, that comes from a party that has no fundamental understanding of technology. It is a ridiculous proposition, and one that would derail perhaps the IRD’s business operations and its own transformation project, all to try to deliver something that is not actually necessary.

You see, one of the great things about technology in the last 25 years is a thing called integration and interoperability—the idea that systems and applications can message between each other, that they can communicate messages, actions, and information between each other. You do not need to change every one of them to be some homogenous, identical thing.

It is a smart IT project to create this unique New Zealand Business Number in a separate central repository and interface those other systems to it. To somehow break that by using one feature of one of those agencies’ systems and then make all of the others fit into that is simply 30-year-old-technology thinking.

If we really want to defeat the purpose of this bill, if we really want to make it less efficient for businesses or agencies to interact with each other, we would support the Opposition members’ amendments. But nothing could be worse for this bill than to follow the amendments that Ms Bond and Dr Clark have tried to put into the House. Thank you.

I just want to remind the member, Brett Hudson, that when the New Zealand Business Number Bill was originally written it actually had it in there that it was mandatory for all Government agencies to belong to and to uptake the New Zealand Business Number legislation. It was written that way, but it was actually removed from the bill recently, so what you have said just now is absolutely not right at all.

I want to say that it has been no secret that New Zealand First has supported the intent of this bill and what the purpose of this bill will actually achieve, but what we had issues with were areas of the bill that identified risk with privacy for businesses. It also identified the fact that not all Government agencies have come along and collectively agreed to be on the uptake of the New Zealand Business Number legislation. So I am actually really happy after looking through the bill, reading through areas, and trying to ensure that when we in this House set legislation we are mindful and make sure that we are not going to be here in a year’s time amending this bill again. My gut instinct is, because of the good intent of the bill, let us get it right. Let us get it right. Let us actually make the provisions for all Government agencies to have a time frame to bring their IT systems up to date.

I have spoken to IT specialists and they have said that some of the error was mostly because of the limited time, 28 days after the Royal assent. It did not give them enough time, so I am offering an olive branch with my amendment. I am offering that the word in clause 28, Part 2, change from being “may” to “must”, as it was originally in the bill. As Dr David Clark has indicated, this amendment is common sense. It says that we believe in your bill but let us take it from being a voluntary involvement, which is absolutely pointless, it would make this whole bill and the purpose redundant if that was the case. We are asking for the Government to show some support for its own bill and change the word from “may” to “must”. That is all I have asked for. I am not asking for the world. What I am saying is that we believe in the intent of your bill. Let us look at the amendment that I have put forward, which makes sense, and let us make the right choice so that we are not back here in 12 months’ time making an amendment to this bill.

I want to add, also, the fact that the Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand were really quite disappointed that this mandate, under section 34 in the bill as previously written, was removed. Their big concern, like Dr Clark and like we had indicated in the first and second readings, was the fact that this bill would run the risk of being another overhead to businesses, and of not being fit for purpose—for the intent—because it had only a very small buy-in by Government agencies. In a responsible working world, and even here in the House, I and New Zealand First would like to think that when a good amendment comes along and actually helps endorse all Government agencies picking this up, the Government would support that. I thank the Labour Party for supporting my amendment, and Dr David Clark for doing an amendment on my amendment, and I am looking forward to the Green Party supporting my amendment, as well.

I want to say that the intent is to cut the red tape, it is to help small businesses, medium businesses, and also those sole traders cut back on their administration time. Productivity in small businesses and as a sole trader could only increase if this bill was to be passed in the House. Sole traders do not have time to sit on the telephone to do an address change with the Inland Revenue Department and wait on that telephone call for 10 minutes. If it is a salon working environment and you have got to quickly do that, and you know you have got to do that, the worst thing is that when you are doing a chemical service—there is a time frame within which you have got to take that chemical off. If you are waiting on the telephone and you have got to ring all the different Government agencies to change some details, it is not good productivity, and it is also a workplace health and safety issue.

So the easiest way to explain this bill is with the fact that companies have been allocated the number since 2013, and this bill seeks to also encompass small businesses, medium businesses, and sole traders so that the achievement of cutting red tape, of actually increasing business productivity, is consistent across all sectors. I do believe that with my amendment we can achieve that. This is the one fish-hook that we are saying we would oppose this bill on. So in order to support the bill we would call for the Government to support the amendment, as well. Thank you.

I want to stand and support the statements that have been made by the member Ria Bond, and also by David Clark. If I were to summarise the amendment that Ria Bond has put before this House, for the benefit of Mr Hudson, it basically says to back yourself—back yourself. To have Mr Hudson actually stand up and say that putting a time line or a requirement on Government agencies to actually implement the purpose of this bill would ruin the bill shows to me what an absolutely shambolic process this has been—absolutely shambolic.

💬 Brett Hudson: If you listened, maybe you would comprehend, Jacinda.

Unfortunately, I did listen, Mr Hudson, and that was my take-home point: back yourself. If you believe that this bill can deliver for business in the way that you have described, and, in fact, if you read the background papers to this bill, as I have—the Cabinet papers, the committee papers, the regulatory impact statements—they clearly set out that this bill will be useful to business only if the widest possible range of Government agencies adopt the purpose of this bill, adopt the whole Business Number regime. So unless the Government is willing to say that there are some requirements for those agencies to pick up the Business Number, then it will not achieve its purpose clause. It will not achieve the purpose as set out at the beginning of the bill.

I want to reflect, though, on the real reason, Mr Hudson—it is not necessarily because of the argument that you seem to put across that in putting a time line we suddenly do not understand technology on this side of the House. I find it quite laughable to be lectured on that by a Government that, only in recent times, basically lost $7 million in the Ministry of Justice by the failed eBench project alone. That is before you start on Novopay and every other failed technological project that this Government has tried to implement.

Putting that aside, the most telling paper that I would recommend that Mr Hudson read is the paper to the Cabinet economic growth and infrastructure committee from March 2015. It sets out the real reason there is reluctance on that side of the House to put forward a date for implementation. Treasury has called this policy high risk because of concerns around Government agencies implementing this proposal. It also sets out just the level of compulsion that the Government is trying to put behind these agencies in order to get the Business Number rolling.

It talks about the Government directions. It says “The Government has previously stated that the main goal of the NZBN is to replace, over time, many of the separate identifiers currently used by businesses … However, no comprehensive statement has been made stating when or how this goal will be achieved.” It set that out as being problematic in the Cabinet paper. “Consequently, many Government agencies are unsure about what they need to do to meet the Government’s expectations …” We are setting out a path forward on that one with this amendment, or how to plan and how to meet those expectations.

It goes on. It says: “We consider the most appropriate vehicle is to issue two directions, one to government departments under cover of a Cabinet Office Circular, the other under … the Crown Entities Act”. What would those directions set out? They would set out the range of agencies to which the direction applies. They would set out a high-level description of what agencies need to do to achieve the goals and milestones in the implementation plan. What better place for it than in the bill itself? There would be a requirement on agencies to report on progress annually. There would be a centralised system for monitoring agencies’ reports, including reporting to Ministers on progress. The Cabinet paper also states: “Consideration would also need to be given to whether there should be a mechanism for resolving any disputes about whether a business identifier is within scope of the NZBN policy … because it is not always clear whether an identifier that is currently being used by an agency should be replaced by the NZBN …”.

What all of that tells us is that the Government knows that the success or failure of this policy relies on its implementation. It will be putting out directions to agencies to implement this policy itself. All I am hearing is that there is a lack of confidence from the Government that those agencies will be able to follow through. That is what we are hearing. It is absolutely clear in this Cabinet paper that implementation is reliant on that happening and, therefore, the only reason it is not in the bill is that there is fear they will not be able to deliver. Why else would you have to set up a dispute resolution mechanism for agencies that are going to push back that hard against a Government direction?

It also suggests to me a bit of a lack of confidence from those agencies as to whether or not they have got the capacity to deliver. Certainly, we have seen, I think, a number of disasters as agencies have tried to transition to new Government-imposed regimes. Perhaps there is a genuine fear amongst those agencies that in that transition they will be unable to deliver to their business clients. Perhaps that is one of the fears.

But I want to just reflect, again, on the purpose clause of the bill, set out in Part 1. The main purpose of the bill we are debating is set out very clearly in three parts. Clause 3, “Main purposes” states “The main purposes of this Act are to—(a) enable eligible entities in New Zealand to interact more easily with government;”—that is the goal. I highlight “government” there—that is a broad turn of phrase. It goes on: “and (ab) enable eligible entities in New Zealand to interact more easily with one another; and (b) reduce transaction costs in New Zealand;”. Then paragraph (c) is about the how. Those big, giant goals are all going to be achieved by establishing and maintaining the New Zealand Business Number Register.

That is a big goal. It is all linked into the Government’s desire under Better Public Services agenda result area 9—which I always think sounds like a bad sci-fi movie—which is to reduce the cost of dealing with the Government by 25 percent, which is a big goal. I can absolutely see why the Government sees that goal as hinging on the success or failure of the business number. I can see that, because it is all about transaction cost—transactions Government to Government. What I am concerned about is the degree to which business believes this is the most useful thing the Government could be doing.

I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, Minister Barry—it seems clear to me from some of the other Cabinet papers I have read that the Government has surveyed business in this regard, perhaps in 2013 when a piece of work called The Benefits of a New Zealand Business Number: the Opinions of New Zealand Businesses was conducted. I do not know whether the Commerce Committee was ever provided with that research, but excerpts seem to have made their way into the Cabinet paper, and they include statements like: “During public consultation in March this year on extending the NZBN to all businesses, larger businesses and industry representatives strongly supported extending the NZBN”.

So big business thinks “Good.”; smaller businesses were less enthusiastic. Smaller businesses were less enthusiastic. Why? What was it about the New Zealand Business Number that they had concerns about? Where is the discussion and dialogue about that? If we want to fulfil that big, bold purpose clause, we need to answer that question. All the Cabinet paper tells me is that this “likely reflects a lack of knowledge about the NZBN.”

So there is a bit of an arrogant view in there that they just cannot do it, and it continues in paragraph 24: “A small number of businesses and individuals commented. Some of these did not see any value in the NZBN.” Again, that is another statement that small businesses question the value of this $14 million project. Again, it is explained away by saying that a number of these small businesses appeared to be giving their initial reaction. I want to see more detail on why it was that small businesses had big question marks over this.

Look, you can theorise around why it could be potentially beneficial—big business sees the value of it. But why is it that those small businesses simply did not? What opportunity is potentially being missed here by there being a lack of transparency around that research, which I think could have really helped the consideration of the select committee and helped us, ultimately, make sure that this big, bold purpose clause is not hollow in its aims, and helped us make sure that the New Zealand Business Number is not just about one section of our business community but is genuinely something that proves useful for the majority of our businesses, which are, indeed, small to medium sized enterprises. I look forward to contributing to the debate on other parts of this bill.

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—

It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the New Zealand Business Number Bill. I wanted to take this opportunity, basically, to respond to the contributions from the other side of the Chamber, which have been kind of marginal at best, to put it politely.

First, to address the resistance of the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, to all Government agencies having to comply and use the business number: if he had read the amendment, it clearly says: “any other identifier the government agency may use for that entity) if that use is in accordance with the purposes of this Act.” Ria Bond wrote this amendment understanding that of course not all Government agencies are going to necessitate the need for the use of the business number—of course it does not make sense. If the member had taken the time to read the amendment, then we would not have wasted those minutes in the debate.

I think that after that contribution the previous speaker, from the other side of the Chamber, should stand up, stand against his party, and vote against this piece of legislation. That is how passionate he was about how pitiful, or how terrible, it is to ask Government agencies to actually have a time line and a budget to comply with the expectations set out in this legislation. I mean, he just could not believe that we would ask Government agencies to comply with those kinds of requirements. It is nonsensical.

What I wanted to touch on, because Minister Joyce, when we first addressed this in the House, spoke very eloquently about how this universal business number will—actually, he spoke about it adding to GDP. He said that it would be so monumental in its application that it would actually improve the economy. We are given numbers such as reduced costs of dealing with the Government by 25 percent. New Zealand First says that companies are now dealing with that. I think we have seen that companies that are obliged to work with the business number system at the moment are seeing some of those benefits. So they are saying: “Actually, we think New Zealand’s small and medium enterprises might benefit from this.”

But as the member Jacinda Ardern pointed out, actually, there is quite a bit of debate around that, and there is actually not a lot of engagement from the Government as to why this would benefit New Zealand businesses. New Zealand business at that smaller level, which you would think would benefit the most from not having to deal with all these Government organisations and that deal with this every day, actually cannot see the benefit of this legislation at face value. So where is the engagement? Where is the conversation? It just undermines what the Government is trying to achieve. I have to say that New Zealand First does support the intent. If it does make it easier for small to medium sized enterprises in New Zealand to engage with the Government so that they are spending less time on red tape, then we think that is a wonderful thing.

I just want to refer to some of the amendments, for example. In the original bill, as has been pointed out, the original obligation for Crown entities was that they “must”—they must—commit to this process. If they do not, it makes a farce of the entire piece of legislation. I put it to you that if it is not mandatory for Crown organisations to commit to this process, not only will the legislation fail and, therefore, undermine its intent but in fact it will be costly for New Zealand businesses in its failure, in terms of their being forced to comply with legislation that, essentially, has no meaning, because the Crown is not there to act in the same manner, on a level playing field, with business.

Originally, the bill said that the legislation must bind the Crown. Now it does not. This bill is all about Crown entities, and they have scratched out: “this Act must bind the Crown”. It just makes no sense whatsoever. I think what Miss Bond and Dr Clark have come up with is exactly the solution that we need. But perhaps if I put it to the Minister: maybe there is another compromise? Maybe if Crown entities can commit in writing to a time frame and a budget to say when they will comply—

💬 Simon O’Connor: It’s in clause 8—clause 8, “the Act binds the Crown”.

No, it has been deleted, mate.

You know, one of the sayings you hear when you have been around this place for long enough is that the longer someone is in Government, the more out of touch they become and the more they become captured by the interests of their officials and of the Government departments that start to rule them, rather than the people they are meant to be here to serve.

I am somewhat shocked to hear that this Government, which has introduced this piece of legislation to reduce compliance costs by making sure that businesses can use a common number when they are dealing with the Government, is now saying: “Oh, but that is actually not what we are going to do with this legislation.” Members of the Government are actually now saying that the Government departments do not have to do it. They do not even have a list of half of the Government departments that would be willing to do it, and they are not even willing to give us a time frame within which any percentage of the Government has to deal with people through this unique or universal business number.

This idea that there are going to have to be 150 different computer programs written across Government departments is also a nonsense, but it belies an incompetence on the part of the Government more generally when it comes to IT projects. Of course there are a variety of IT platforms across Government, and the actual interfaces between the new software and those different software systems will have to be a little different. But, you know, the Government could have already written the overlying piece of software so that it then had to deal with only the interfaces for each department.

It has not learnt the lessons of PAYE. How many PAYE systems do you think the Government owns across the public sector?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Heaps.

There are an enormous number of them. Do they all work?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Bound to not work.

Well, they do not all work. The Government proves that to us every 6 months. We had Novopay. You would have thought that after Novopay, when the superministry, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—we are not allowed to call it “MoBIE”; there was a ministerial directive that we were not allowed to call the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment “MoBIE”—was formed as the superministry, would have checked it had the right PAYE system. Did it check? Was it the same Minister who is responsible for this piece of legislation? No, it did not check, and, as a consequence, we recently had the embarrassing spectacle that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment did not have its own PAYE system right, despite the fact that it houses the Department of Labour.

💬 Dr David Clark: They don’t even comply with their own law.

They do not even comply with their own law.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Fawlty Towers.

It is like Fawlty Towers. And then we are expected to come along and trust Minister Joyce to get it right here, despite the fact that, by amendment to this legislation, there is no compulsion on the Government departments to provide this universal or unique business number.

You know, I heard it said that this ought not to be used for all Government departments, and it is true. But I recommend this to the Police. We have actually got to the point in New Zealand that with less than 10 percent of burglaries resolved, the only way the police are going to resolve most burglaries is if the burglars provide their own unique identifier.

I do not say that seriously, but, really, consider the laughability of the Government in respect of its opposition to Ria Bond’s very sensible proposed amendment to this legislation to put some date by which the Government has to do something. Maybe the period is wrong. Maybe the Government or the Minister would like to take a call and say: “Actually, you know, we can’t do it overnight. We can’t do it within 2 years, as Dr Clark proposes, but we could do it within 3.” I think we in the Opposition would probably agree to 3 years. We would not mind even if we heard from the ministry, or the Minister in the chair, as to when the first Government department is going to be using it. It would be quite nice to have a unique Government department applying this universal business number. But we have not even heard the Minister addressing that.

There are a couple of other issues that I would like to raise quite seriously. One is: I do not think that we have had a proper discussion as to why it is that the IRD number—which every one of these businesses already has and already knows and already uses every 2 months on their GST return, or every year on their income tax return—cannot be the unique identifier that Government departments use. I have not heard the Government explain why that is. There may be some good reasons, but I have not heard an explanation from Government Ministers or in the Commerce Committee’s report or from the Minister in the chair as to why that unique identifier, which every business already has, is not the unique identifier that is going to be used across Government. I heard Brett Hudson say that that was impossible. Why?

It seems to be possible for the IRD number to be a unique identifier for every New Zealand taxpayer—i.e., every business already—so they seem to be able to work that for every business in New Zealand. Why can the rest of the Government not adopt that number? Why can the Government not be more sensible in the use of data generally?

We have got the problem in New Zealand that some people cannot vote at elections. The Government does not mind that, because most of the people who are disenfranchised by that are not likely to vote for the National Party. So National actually likes the rolls to be imperfect. You actually see this in election cycle after election cycle. The Labour Party, when in power—[Interruption] Mr Chair, this is a matter relating to unique identifiers. The Labour Party—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Return back to it.

—makes it easier and easier to enrol—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Go back to the New Zealand Business Number Bill.

—for people to get their ability to enrol. Then the National Party comes in and it makes it harder every time. There is a cycle to this. Well, why can people not have a unique identifier, like the IRD number, that entitles them to vote? That is how some other overseas countries manage their electoral rolls. They base it on the IRD number. They sometimes put a year of birth after it so that it makes it harder for people to defraud voting, because they will turn up and they have got to be about the right age.

Why is it that the Government will not do these sensible things that would save money to businesses, save money to the Government in the case of the electoral roll, save money to the Government in the case of using the likes of the IRD number instead of some other new unique identifier when we already have got one for every business in New Zealand? Why is it that the Government will not do those things? And then, more particularly, why is it that the Minister in the chair of this Committee stage of this process will not get up and defend the Government in respect of these questions? The answer is that on these issues they are less than competent.

We see it time and time again. We have cost overruns in respect of IT projects. We have delays. The one that we have had that is particularly egregious is that Parliament, twice, has had to have amending legislation to extend the date for implementation of a piece of legislation relating to child support payments. Twice, the Government has put deadlines on it for implementation, and, twice, because of its incompetence in respect of IT projects, it has not met the deadline and it has had to come back to this Parliament and do it again.

Now Government members have become so scared of their own incompetence that they will not agree to any time line, even though they know, as my colleague Jacinda Ardern has pointed out, from their own Cabinet papers and their own Treasury reports, that one of the reasons this will not work as well as it could work is that there is no built-in mechanism from Parliament saying: “Well, you know, we’ll agree a reasonable deadline, but, actually, we want to have some compulsion for the Government to do what it needs to do, in terms of its systems, to make this unique business number work.”

This is the Government that in 2012, when Microsoft—with which this Government has major contracts in every Government agency, for the computers that run in every Government agency—announced that a software program called XP was going to run out and they were going to stop servicing it and were going to bring in other programs, this Government basically ignored that direction and did very little about it. When it came to 2014, when the actual servicing by Microsoft ran out, there were 20,000 computers in district health boards and more than 20,000 across Government agencies that were still running a software product that Microsoft no longer serviced, which meant that they were vulnerable to attack.

If that does not give you an indication of how this Government approaches big IT projects, managing across agencies—something that should be quite simple to manage, and it could not even do that. When you look at the Cabinet papers that came out on that issue, they said it was too hard because it was about managing across agencies. What this Government cannot do is manage big projects across agencies, and what we have before us in the Committee today is a piece of legislation that has been put forward and the work has not been done. The work has not been done to prepare the groundwork for how something like a New Zealand Business Number, which on paper and in concept seems to be a not too difficult concept to get your head around, could actually be put into practice.

When this bill came to the Commerce Committee, it had a clause in it—clause 34—that mandated all Government agencies to introduce a New Zealand Business Number. This side of the House, all of the Opposition parties that sat in the select committee, agreed that the intent of this bill was good, that it was sensible, that, ultimately, it should be done. And, yes, there was discussion about how that would ensue and what sort of mechanism would be used, but we supported that. When the bill came back to the House, mysteriously that clause disappeared and was replaced with clause 28, which says that Government agencies may use the New Zealand Business Number. We hear through other contributions in the Committee this afternoon as to why that is the case: it was all going to be too hard and the work had not been done.

So we have two amendments that have been put up this afternoon. One is from Ria Bond—I congratulate you on the amendment that you have put forward. The other one is by my colleague David Clark. Both of those amendments deal with the two flaws that are in this bill. The two flaws in this bill are, No. 1, that there is no mandate for Government agencies to adopt this legislation, which does make it a farce, and, No. 2, that there is no time line for any process for this to occur. So it could be that in 10 years’ time we see that many of the agencies, the Government departments, have not gone ahead and taken up this legislation. So it does seem to be rather a farce.

In the discussion and the submissions on this bill in the select committee, there were numerous submissions from agencies and from the private sector that asked for this bill to apply to all Government agencies, and for that to be mandated in the bill. That was fair enough. That was absolutely fair enough. If the private sector is being required to institute a business number, why then is the public sector not? We had numerous debates on whether there should be any exemptions within the private sector and what those exemptions should entail, but when it came to the public sector that clause disappeared, and it became as if it was all too hard.

I want to actually list what some of those agencies said. Business Central and the Wellington Employers’ Chamber of Commerce said that they were concerned that the intent of the New Zealand Business Number may be undermined if Government departments continued to use their own business identifier numbers. There must be a smooth transition, and the use of dual numbers should not be a barrier to full implementation. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand, as we have heard earlier, said that it was disappointed that clause 34 in the exposure draft of the bill had been removed from the bill. Federated Farmers said “as many government agencies as possible should adopt the [New Zealand Business Number] as soon as practicable.” GS1 New Zealand said “it is critical … that [Government] agencies commit to, and meet published timetables for implementation of” the New Zealand Business Number. The New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry said “government departments should transition … into this system once implemented,” and it cautioned against a “staggered approach”.

These are heavy hitters, yet, basically, the advice from officials was that this was outside the scope of the bill as it was emerging through the Commerce Committee and that it would now be implemented through Government directives. The problem is that this is a piece of legislation that went through extensive discussions and it has come back watered down, and you could even use the word neutered—neutered—as a result. And what it shows is that there is a veneer of organisation from this Government. Behind it lies the lack of preparation. I think this bill has had three, maybe four, Ministers who have carriage of it. I do not think there has been any strategy that has gone on behind it, and that is a real shame.

And it is not the only piece of legislation like this; my colleague David Parker referenced other legislation. The Harmful Digital Communications Act is another example of a piece of legislation passed by this Government in, seemingly, a hurry. It implemented a new criminal offence for people in the cyber environment and cyber-bullying, but one of the major parts of the legislation is the creation of an approved agency and a means by which parents, particularly—people who have got children who are being bullied online—can go somewhere. But they are unable to, and it is nearly a year since that legislation passed.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to the bill.

The relevance, Mr Chair, is that it is another example of the Government not being prepared when it brings a piece of legislation to the Committee. It has not done the work. The Harmful Digital Communications Act—that approved agency has still not been appointed. There is nowhere for parents to go for mediation when there has been cyber-bullying that has occurred.

With this New Zealand Business Number Bill we have no idea as to when the public sector is going to fulfil the intent of this bill, what the time line will be, whether or not major Government agencies will actually take it on, and when they will take it on. This is a problematic bill. What we have before us today is a neutered bill that does not fulfil the original intent.

Seeing as you have a copy of the bill in your hand, Mr Chair, I will refer directly to it. I wanted to point out clause 3, which sets out the main purposes of the bill. I know other members have, but at this stage of the debate I just want to draw together a few strands of speeches that already have been made. The main purpose in clause 3(a) is to “enable eligible entities in New Zealand to interact more easily with government;”, and I do not think anyone in this Committee has a problem with that. Paragraph (ab), which is new and is from the Commerce Committee’s consideration, is to “enable eligible entities in New Zealand to interact more easily with one another;”. I do not think anyone in this Committee has a problem with that. Paragraph (b) goes on to “reduce transaction costs in New Zealand;”, and I think most parties in this Committee would like to reduce the amount of imposts that businesses have, so that they can be more profitable—no problem with that. I could go on, but I think people have got the gist.

The intent of this piece of legislation no one has any problem with. I think the Government has missed a trick, because we are actually trying to help it achieve these purposes in an effective and timely manner. When the Government was criticising the amendments of New Zealand First MP Ria Bond and my colleague David Clark it missed a trick. A contribution from Brett Hudson earlier on in this debate gave the game away. The Government is taking—and we have had this from its side of the Chamber—a yeah, nah attitude towards this piece of legislation: “Yeah, we want to do it, but nah, we don’t necessarily want to do it.” That is our concern on this side of the Chamber.

We want to achieve all the things the Government wants to—we want to help you. We have put forward amendments to make sure that the bill is effective, that it is timely, and that the kinds of benefits to businesses and government that you want to achieve actually happen in a good and proper way. But, as we have said, the bill in its current form, we feel, does not change that. When we first started this process, before Mr Hudson got on his feet, we feared. We perceived fear. That is why we thought we would bring these amendments—because we feared that the bill as we read it would not cut the mustard. Then Mr Hudson got on his feet and admitted that this piece of legislation does not cut the mustard, and the Government is quite happy that it does not cut the mustard.

So I am very confused about the attitude of the Government. It says it wants to do all these things for business. It wants to make it more efficient, it wants to make it more profitable—as it says in clause 3, the main purposes of this bill—but it is not backing itself to get there. So we are being helpful with these amendments, and good on you, Ria Bond, and good on you, David Clark, for putting these amendments here, to give this piece of legislation just a bit of guts and to make sure that it will effect what the Government actually wants to achieve. That is what this is all really about.

There has been concern about the effectiveness of this piece of legislation from one part of our economy that the Government usually does not pay any attention to, and that is Federated Farmers. In their submission to the select committee they expressed concern, concerns that we share, that the initial list of Government departments does not include agencies such as WorkSafe and Immigration New Zealand. Hold on a minute—that is what our amendment does. It is not just us playing politics; it is actually submitters, like Federated Farmers, who have come to the select committee and said: “Hey, if you are going to do this, do it properly, and make sure more than just a handful of Government departments are included in this.” They also helpfully suggested that we move things forward and also include local government within the realms of this piece of legislation, which we support on this side of the Chamber.

Maybe the Government should listen to Federated Farmers—pick up the red phone and listen to them around this piece of legislation. We do not agree with Federated Farmers all the time on this side of the Chamber, but on this occasion we do, because if the Government wants to achieve the efficiencies and the benefits to businesses and Government agencies, then we believe that pushing the boat forward a bit faster and giving it some guts is a good thing.

Mr Hudson claimed that on this side of the Chamber we do not know much about technology. I believe he has worked in the IT sector, and I have not, so I am taking a rather large risk using the next analogy I am about to use, and that is around the ultra-fast broadband roll-out. The analogy here is that you roll out this ultra-fast broadband cable, but you do not really want people to link up to it—just a few, so you do not overcrowd the market. You do not want to get too many people connected to it, because it might blow the system.

That is not what this Government, funnily enough, is doing with the ultra-fast broadband roll-out. It is rolling it out down all the streets. We hear all the time that “It’s a part of the economic development of our country. We’re rolling out this ultra-fast broadband and we want as many people as we can to connect to it, because it is good for our economy.” I can see some parallels here, because the Government is saying “We’re creating this New Zealand Business Number, and for these reasons we think it’s good for business, and we want only a few of our Government agencies to use it but not all, because we think it might overload the system and they’re not ready for it.”—which is another issue in itself.

So I think the Government is guilty of a slight double standard here in that it wants this piece of legislation out there, it wants businesses to be able to use this Business Number, but, in all reality, it is not ready for it to be out there and to be effective. Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand also came to us and expressed concern around that. It said in its submission “the benefits for businesses may be overstated” without the mandate for recognition of the business number contained in the original section 34, and “without significant uptake there is a risk that the identifier is not integrated and utilised widely, and just becomes another number,”. And that is a phrase that you will hear during this debate as we continue, because that is what we fear may happen if there is not a clear sense of purpose and a clear sense of urgency for Government departments to sign up to the New Zealand Business Number.

There has been talk of why we have not adopted the IRD number as a New Zealand business number. I think it was my colleague David Parker who said that that number is already in place, so could that have been adopted as the identifier, instead of adopting a new business number? That was one submission put up during the Commerce Committee’s considerations.

The question was raised as to whether this is the most effective way to do it. It could be. The New Zealand Business Number could be the most effective way to do this, but we do not believe that the Government is backing itself in this instance to make sure that it is effective and timely. That is why, to finish up, the amendment in the name of Ria Bond and David Clark’s amendment to her amendment should be taken seriously by the Government if it really wants this New Zealand Business Number strategy—apparently there is a strategy—to be effective. If you want to help businesses and you want to make them more profitable, then do things properly.

I would like to talk about clauses 24, 25, 26, and 27.

💬 Simon O’Connor: What about 28?

Well, we can do 28 if we have got time. Let us wait and see. These clauses, basically, talk about the difference between public primary business data versus other primary business data. What we have here is two different types—two different levels—of data that have to be collected on the register. There are some questions that I have got.

Clause 24 basically says that the registrar must keep and operate a register. That makes sense. I mean, it is part of the bill—it is just how things are done. But clause 25 says “Public primary business data … must be available for access and searching by members of the public at all times,”—OK, that makes a lot of sense. If we go to Part 1 of schedule 3—I only want to talk about corporate and public entities here—it outlines the sort of information that must be registered. It is the sort of stuff that should be found on any business website—you know, your name, your trading name, your address, your location identifier, obviously the number, start date, and type of entity. But there is one question that I have got here: in clause 25(2) it actually says: “The Registrar may refuse access to the register or otherwise suspend the operation of the register, in whole or in part, if the Registrar thinks that it is not practical to provide access to the register.”

What does that actually mean? Under what circumstances would the registrar say: “Look, it’s just not practical for me to provide this access, therefore, I’m not going to.”? I would have thought there would be at least some sort of test, as opposed to just saying that it is not practical. Does that mean, you know, it is 4.30 on a Friday and I am about to go home, it is not practical? I am unsure what that means; it is a little confusing.

The other thing that I would also like to talk about is that we have got public primary business data, then there is also other primary business data. This is the data that must be provided, but can be accessed only by Government departments. The thing that strikes me as a little bit skew-whiff about this is that after 2008 and the global financial crisis, when a whole lot of entities fell over due to, you could argue, negligent business practice, the Parliament passed a whole lot of legislation that made investing a lot more transparent. It was recognised that, OK, there is business risk in any sort of investment, but one of the risks that investors should not have to deal with is that of negligence or dishonesty. But here, the sort of information that the public does not have access to is the sort of information that, I would have thought, the public should have access to.

The other thing is that it is called “Other primary business data” and it is in Part 1 of schedule 3A. It is things like GST status, postal address, and physical address. It is not onerous. There is nothing that I would have thought would be proprietary in this—it does not contain any sort of intellectual property or anything that I would have thought a business’ competitors could look at and go: “Ah, now I know a lot more about this and I can mount some sort of competitive—or I can gain some sort of competitive advantage.” But the thing that gets to me a little bit is if we go to clause 27—this is “Government agencies’ powers relating to register”—subclause (1) says “A government agency may access and use any public primary business data contained in the register”, which is absolutely fine because, according to this bill, any member of the public can do that. But then we go down to subclause (1A), “A government agency may access and use any other primary business data”—so this is the confidential stuff—“contained in the register … if (a) an enactment, other than this Act, authorises the agency to collect that information;”.

I would have thought if someone is operating a business and they are going to be part of this—because this is supposed to make it easy between businesses relating to Government etc.—then the business would want to know what enactments, apart from this legislation, could be covered under this. I would have thought that at least in one of the schedules it could outline the other enactments, or the other pieces of legislation, under which a Government agency would be likely to access this data, because if I looked at this, it just provides no information whatsoever.

It also says that if a New Zealand Business Number “entity has consented, in the manner determined by the Registrar,”—fine, no problems with that. If you consent to give information to a Government department, then there are no problems whatsoever. But I just would like—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Urgh! Stuart Nash.

Gee, it is a hard choice, is it not? It must be riveting that people want to hear what else I have got to say. I would have thought that what we need to do and what we should be looking to do with all legislation that pertains to making business easier—interactions between Governments and business and between businesses and businesses—or what the No. 1 test is: (a) how transparent this is, and (b) how it is going to drive efficiency. As my colleague Kris Faafoi pointed out, yes, the purpose of the bill is actually noble. I mean, of course businesses want to be able to interact with Government agencies in a way that creates efficiency, and of course businesses want to be able to interact with other businesses in a way that minimises cost and creates efficiency. But the thing that I would have thought we would have in here something about transparency, because it is not just the businesses and Government agencies that need the information, it is also potential investors and current investors, who I think now require or demand a level of information that allows them to make informed decisions. And I think that by saying that they are not allowed access to Part 1 of schedule 3A—“Other primary business data”—it just goes against what we have been trying to do as a Parliament since 2008, or certainly 2009, when legislation came in that made companies more accountable to their investors.

The last thing I would just like to reiterate is that I just cannot figure out what other pieces of legislation may be enacted that would require a Government agency to download the information here. I would have thought, again, in the interests of transparency, that at least some or all of the legislation—because there cannot be that much—would be outlined in a schedule so that the transparency exists, both for the business and, to be fair, for the other Government agencies. The last thing a business wants to find out is that the Inland Revenue Department or the Department of Labour or some other Government agency has, in fact, accessed its data and the entity has not given it permission to do that. A business wants to know under which piece of legislation a department has been able to gain access to this data. So transparency must be a cornerstone of all legislation that pertains to business information. Thank you very much.

Jacinda Ardern. Let us just check—

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 5,000 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,”.