New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill

I move, That the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill be now read a third time.

As I have mentioned, this bill fixes a structural problem within the New Zealand Business Number Act. It was a problem that we inherited under the previous Government and one that requires urgent legislation. In the short term, it provides a clear legislative signal to companies that the fees they are being charged under the Companies Act are being used to pay for the New Zealand Business Number. This bill also resolves the uncertainty over how the New Zealand Business Number has been funded in the past and draws a line under it.

In the longer term, this bill provides a legal framework for how incorporated businesses will be charged for the New Zealand Business Number. The exact amount businesses will be charged will be set after a transparent and principled consultation with businesses. This will provide businesses with greater transparency about how the Government is spending the money it collects from them and the value of the money being provided. Because companies are already charged for the New Zealand Business Number, separating this out into a discrete fee should not impact on the overall amount that businesses are charged.

I thank my officials for their work on this bill and my good colleague and mate the Hon Kris Faafoi for his support in getting this problem fixed. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to continue our support in this rather shortened debate on the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill. It has been acknowledged through the course of this debate that there was an error in the mechanism for collecting the levy. It was an absolutely valid levy. This bill takes care of that. That is the action of the bill, but it isn’t actually the import of the bill.

The truly important part of this bill is it validates and ensures that the New Zealand Business Number will continue to be in force, continue to be able to be used by about half a billion companies—half a million companies, sorry; we haven’t got that many companies in New Zealand. Half a million companies—500,000 companies in New Zealand. It will help and continue to ease transactions in business between small business in particular and Government. In the future, one can hope that it might also expand to help ease transactions between businesses and between businesses and customers.

It has always been a very good idea. Its implementation was important for New Zealand. Its objectives and the benefits it can deliver for the country and for the businesses that are part of it remain valid, and the actions we are taking today, the true import of them, go beyond fixing an administrative error and makes sure that the New Zealand Business Number can continue. We commend this bill to the House.

I rise in support of this excellent bill, the New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill, which supports an excellent piece of business apparatus that enables business to be conducted with ease in this country. For that reason, it’s important to have the New Zealand Business Number properly supported, and this is what this legislation does. I commend this bill to the House.

Madam Assistant Speaker, I’m sure you’ll agree that there’s been a wide-ranging debate on this bill.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Misleading the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Dr Webb, that’s not needed.

Thank you for making some of these members more confined in their comments. I thought it might be useful just to re-summarise—oh, the other point. I find some of the comments from the Government members very uncharitable—very uncharitable, particularly that deputy leader of New Zealand First. When this very good piece of legislation was originally passed, and everyone now is claiming credit for it and saying what a great thing it was—and it is. It is. But there are things sometimes in bills, and we’ve seen it many times before, where there are errors made, and people take responsibility for the errors. But this was an administrative oversight, and I think some of those comments, particularly from Mr Fletcher, were unkind and uncalled for. In the light of a wellbeing Budget, I think he should reflect on those comments that he’s made. We on this side, we’re generous to people; we want to look after them. That’s why we want thriving businesses, and that’s why this bill is so good.

So, just to recap, it’s got three things to it. First thing: it “retrospectively validates the imposition, collection, and use, for NZBN register and related functions, of fees prescribed and collected under the Companies Act”. That’s what we’re talking about—that’s the error that we’ve got to try and address. It “amends the Companies Act 1993 to provide that regulations under that Act may authorise fees collected under the Act to be used to fund the NZBN register and related functions”. So now that’s giving the power to do it under that mechanism.

But this is the third thing, and I must admit I was very disappointed that I didn’t hear from the Minister on this issue, because I thought it was a very important thing: it “amends the NZBN Act to insert a regulation-making power”. That means the Minister has the ability to do this, of his own volition, without oversight of Parliament. He can insert a regulation-making power that will enable the New Zealand Business Register and related functions to be funded from fees, charges, or levies payable by entities that have been allocated a New Zealand Business Number.

Now, if it was a National Party Cabinet Minister, maybe some of us would have more, sort of, comfort in that thought. It’s a warm feeling. But because we do not know the Minister’s future intent—and that’s why I thought it was very important to take the opportunity when it was asked. He chose not to, and I’m very disappointed. But I think it’s important that the principle is that these fees must be the minimum possible, and the imposition of any future fees by the Minister should be in a way that does not make an increased administrative burden on our fantastic 530,000 small businesses in New Zealand—the backbone of our economy, and the people that employ the vast majority of all people, including some of the members of this House.

It’s a pleasure to take a call on this—where are we up to?—the third reading. Ha, ha!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): It is third reading, if the member needs help.

I apologise. I just wanted to address the comments from the previous speaker, Andrew Bayly. Credit where credit’s due—let’s acknowledge the mistakes made by the previous chairman of the Commerce Committee and the member himself. This is requiring this parliamentary process to go—

💬 Hon Shane Jones: The leaker—the leaker’s arrived.

—into urgency to fix up a mistake from the previous Government.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Mr Jones, it’s not needed. Carry on, Mr Fletcher Tabuteau.

Thank you. So, in conclusion, I’d just like to stand in support of the legislation itself, not only having to fix it up—but, yes, the original legislation, New Zealand First did stand in support of the intent of that work because we do want to see the ability for business to do business in a smoother and easier way, and we agree that that’s what this legislation will do. With those words, I thank you in the House.

Bill read a third time.