Veda Advantage (NZ) Limited. Submission to the Commerce. Select Committee. The New Zealand Business Number Bill. (Government Bill )

Transcription

1 Veda Advantage (NZ) Limited Submission to the Commerce Select Committee on The New Zealand Business Number Bill (Government Bill ) Veda Advantage (NZ) Private Bag 91256, Auckland Mail Centre Limited Auckland 1142 New Zealand veda.co.nz

2 TO Commerce Committee Committee Secretariat Commerce Parliament Buildings Wellington Phone: Fax: select.committees@parliament.govt.nz For 30 June 2015 Contact - Michelle Chignell New Zealand Legal Counsel Veda Advantage (NZ) Limited DDI: Fax: michelle.chignell@veda.co.nz 2

3 About This Submission This submission is in four parts: A B C D Introduction Information about Veda; who we are; and why we are making a submission on this Sections submitted on (includes comment on draft regulations) Conclusion A. INTRODUCTION Our Submission in context: 1. Veda's comments and proposals in this submission are aimed at facilitating best practice interaction between businesses and others. 2. This Bill potentially enables a best practice identifier of businesses by business and facilitates disclosure/availability of different classes of information publically or by consent. 3. These reforms can potentially enable greater insight into types of businesses which currently lack transparency sole traders, partnerships and trading trusts in particular - by creating a register of information which in the case of certain data may be open to the public, and also for some information by consent. 4. We submit that this could be improved upon in a way which could benefit business, the public, government, the economy and better enable New Zealand to meet our international obligations Veda would appreciate the opportunity to appear in person and speak to its submissions. B ABOUT VEDA ADVANTAGE (NZ) LIMITED 1. Veda Advantage (NZ) Limited (Veda) is New Zealand s leading consumer credit reporter. We hold data on over 97.5 % of the credit active population of New Zealand. We also report on commercial entities regarding the credit worthiness of those entities. Veda Advantage (NZ) Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of a New Zealand holding company, Veda Advantage Holdings (NZ) Limited, and has as the ultimate parent Veda Group Limited which publically listed in Australia. 2. Veda is Australasia s single largest and most sophisticated source of data-based business information services. The Veda Group provides business intelligence and data driven credit risk management solutions. Veda s principal operations are in New Zealand and Australia, but it also 1 The 2009 Mutual Evaluation report by our evaluator the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) makes reference at page 19, item 34 in the table regarding the item Legal arrangements beneficial owners, the point is made that: There is no requirement to obtain, verify and retain adequate, accurate and current information on the beneficial ownership and control of trusts (NC). 3

4 has operations in Cambodia, Singapore, and Malaysia and has implemented support solutions in Saudi Arabia. 3. Veda s customers cover a wide range of industries, including banking, telecommunications, finance, retail, utilities, trade credit, government, credit unions and mortgage lenders, among others. Veda s top-tier customers are New Zealand and Australia s major banks, telecommunications and finance companies. Veda currently has approximately 10,000 subscribers in New Zealand. 4. Veda offers a wide range of credit checking, identity verification and fraud detection products to New Zealand businesses. 5. Any business entity seeking credit from a bank, other lending institution or from a business providing goods or services on credit potentially benefits from that interaction. That party needs to understand who they are dealing with and seeks to transact with confidence. We are there to help. 6. The latest iteration of this Bill places less emphasis upon businesses interacting amongst themselves and more emphasis upon either businesses interacting with government or with individuals. 7. Nonetheless the need for businesses to interact with other businesses with confidence remains important. Why we are making this submission 8. Our experience as a credit reporter both in New Zealand and internationally provides us with relevant expertise into what might be relevant regarding a business number. 9. We have made submissions on reform previously related to the NZBN and upon the Exposure Draft Bill in In New Zealand we work with commercial businesses to provide information which can help those businesses to trade and also to provide credit to their customers in a prudent and responsible way. We also provide information to government agencies as customers. We obtain information from government and others. 11. It is relevant that at present limited insight is available to lenders and businesses which provide goods and services and lending on credit terms. Whilst some information pertinent to credit risk assessment can be collected on companies and on consumers, there are significant gaps - which expose businesses to risks. 12. The NZBN will be available to entities which are not corporates. This is a welcome potential enabler of transparency for businesses and others which interact with and provide credit to such entities. 4

5 13. The entities which may have an NZBN are diverse and pose different kinds of risks to other businesses. Our submission addresses how such risks could be dealt with. 14. We are in the business of providing risk assessment tools and credit information to creditors and others including government departments regarding the creditworthiness of individuals and companies. We are directly regulated by a Code issued by the Privacy Commissioner under section 46 of the Privacy Act This balancing of privacy with economic benefit - which permits credit reporting - in many senses addresses transparency in relation to creditworthiness. Transparency 15. There is no right to credit. Those seeking credit exchange aspects of privacy to permit disclosure and transparency in risk assessment. Similarly setting up as a business involves such a trade-off. There is no right to carry on business in a private way. The integrity of a New Zealand Business Number (NZBN) will depend upon the utility and perceptions of those who can use it- both those who have such numbers and those who interact with them. 16. An entity which is in business has to expect a certain amount of scrutiny and transparency. A system which has both elements has a greater integrity than one which does not. Our submissions are about attaining consistent and relevant levels of scrutiny and transparency. 17. Our experience of the Australian equivalent regime also informs our view. We are familiar too with other international regimes which aim to achieve transparency and identification of businesses. 18. We understand the issues around dealing with in particular trading trusts and also the implications of a lack of transparency which abound for creditors, banks, financial institutions and their regulators and consumers. These issues are difficult to quantify because of the hidden nature of trusts. 19. Secrecy around trading trusts may serve legitimate ends but equally it may serve less savoury endeavours. 20. We welcome the inclusion of trading trusts in the NZBN regime. 21. A trading trust has in the past been criticised as opaque including in Financial Action Task (FATF) evaluations of AML/CFT compliance by New Zealand. New Zealand was assessed as noncompliant with recommendation 34. Recommendation 34 is one of the Forty (+9) recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force which New Zealand has agreed to support. 22. The FATF assesses internationally the compliance with AML/CFT obligations assuming by nations.it is relevant to a consideration of the legality of trusts that New Zealand is assessed regularly by FATF with reference to the record of such trusts and the legal requirements pertinent to recommendation 34. This is not merely a technical matter. We are falling short of an 5

6 international standard which was devised to address known risks Criminal and terrorist activities may exploit opportunities for clandestine investment. Money laundering of the proceeds of crime, facilitating and funding criminal activities and terrorism undermine not only law and order in this country but also, potentially, law and order in other jurisdictions. C SECTIONS SUBMITTED ON We are making submissions about the sections of the Bill detailed below and also the provisional draft of the New Zealand Business Number Regulations The sections are 3, 5, 14, 15, 17, 20 23, 26, 31-32, Schedule 3, and the Schedule to the provisional draft of the New Zealand Business Number Regulations Section order is followed except that the Schedules are commented on at the end of the submission. I. The purpose and giving effect to the purpose (sections 3 and the rest of the Bill) 1. Veda submits that the purpose as set out in section 3 of the Bill is too narrowly defined. It should also include enabling businesses to interact more easily with other businesses with confidence. 2. The Bill is about more than government s interaction with businesses -it enables a public register to be created which may be searched by the public for a range of entities (the searching is not limited to the government.) 3. It also enables third parties to search and access register information, Veda submits that the purpose should be broadened accordingly. Veda submits that consideration should be given to the context in which businesses interact with others. 4. Most interactions will not be with the government- instead they will be with the consumers and with other businesses. Both consumers and interacting businesses need to know with whom they are dealing, what the entity is (as in what kind of entity it is) and whether they can in any way corroborate those matters. In a sense too the register information will enable them to do a form of due diligence and decide whether to do business with the entity and it may in the end be about risk assessment and trust. 5. The utility of such a new and robust identifier for those who interact with a business is potentially significant. In the NZBN registration process a measure of confidence can be derived from the requirements around providing the information and the existence of other publically available data. 6. Veda submits that the purpose should be broadened accordingly to match what the Bill will do and to acknowledge the contexts in which businesses conduct their business. 2 The 2009 Mutual Evaluation report by FATF makes reference at page 19, item 34 in the table regarding the item Legal arrangements beneficial owners, the point is made that: There is no requirement to obtain, verify and retain adequate, accurate and current information on the beneficial ownership and control of trusts (NC). 6

7 7. Our submissions regarding the rest of the Bill address in more detail enabling consumers and other businesses to interact with a business which has an NZBN with a level of confidence. This will meet a real and current need. Veda submits that section 3 should be amended to include: enabling businesses to interact more easily with other businesses with confidence II Verification, AML/CFT and the requirements of sections 14 to 17, and sections 31 and The data elements can potentially provide confidence for a user of the NZBN register regarding the accuracy and validation of the information on the register. 9. However the value of the NZBN as an identifier depends upon the way in which the information collected has been verified and associated. An association based on an unsupported assertion has less value than a robust link between the entity and the identity claimed. 10. There is a need for some measure of confidence in business interaction and in consumer interaction with businesses regarding the risk of doing so, involving such questions as who is this business, what kind of entity is this business, in determining whether or not to deal with such a business. It is our observation based on our experience that in the current New Zealand business environment there is an urgent need for this. 11. Verification from multiple sources can facilitate a stronger match probabilistically and more accurate identification. For AML/CFT a consent based collection, use and disclosure of such information has utility and merit on many levels. 12. There appears to be need for disclosure of the existence of business entities including trusts in both credit risk assessment and AML risk assessment and compliance. 13. Section 31 contemplates delegation and Section 32 refers to government, sources of information and information sourced from an entity in relation to the Registrar's verification powers. 14. Insight on corporate entities may be available from Veda's corporate credit information. Insight on the individuals involved might be available with consent of the consumer if the Bill provided for this (and/or the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (the OPC) amended the Credit Reporting Privacy Code 2004(the Code) to permit this. Rule 11 of the Code permits verification of individuals by credit providers with the consent of that individual and also by credit insurers with consent for verifying the identity of that individual in accordance with the requirements of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009.) 15. The integrity of the Register is an important public interest which could be met by verification from for example, Veda's credit bureau data. 16. We acknowledge the Privacy Commissioner will have a view on this. 7

8 Veda submits that public sector information such as credit reporting information might provide additional and objective insight to the Registrar. Sections of the Bill should be amended to allow for this by permitting the registrar to seek credit reporting information to verify applicants for the NZBN. Useful cross referencing 17. The utility of the NZBN number to increase accuracy as an associated unique identifier is significant as a matter of statistical probability. 18. The assignment of the NZBN to a company, trust, partnership or individual in trade should also enable cross referencing consistently for all entity types. What is usually disclosed in business in transactions differs from what a person might disclose privately or outside of a business context. The expectation of privacy is not the same. III. The register data classes and definitions (sections 20 to 23) should be reclassified 19. This section comments on the data elements, their utility, and whether they are created "equal" (section 21 Schedule 3 and the proposed draft regulations). Also we comment on what data should be mandatory. 20. Not all data elements have equal importance, significance and relevance in an interaction with a business. The who and what data elements are of primary importance and should be transparent and readily available as mandatory public data. The industry type and location are relevant to the services to be offered and to costs, some of which may be distance related. 21. Each class of entity has different attributes of identity of different strengths probabilistically. 22. The NZBN register will create new reference points for attributes of identity as well as new attributes of identity (the NZBN itself). For an entity these are attributed and biographical. The outcome of the identity recognition process can be defined as a probability. 23. Later in this submission we submit that the data in Schedule 3 should be increased and that the data in the regulations should also be increased as a result of that. 24. Identity is an artefact, and also a function or process. The law assumes that each individual has a single, continuous identity as a natural person a true identity. The law assumes that true identity is accessible. In practice it is not, but it may be approximated. 25. A range of identity recognition processes can attempt to approximate true identity. All processes are fallible, and no practical recognition process is unconditionally the best. Identity recognition establishing true identity is always a probabilistic process. 26. Any practical identity recognition process can rely only on the information that is available. Identity recognition evidence of a natural person may include: Biometric (fingerprints, voice, retina, facial structure and DNA) Attributed (birth name, date of birth, parent s details); 8

9 Biographical (evidence of social interaction such as credit history, educational certificates, electoral registration) The Schedules will contain classes of attributed and biographical data for an entity and might be used in a range of identity processes for that entity. Date of birth- as an attribute and important data field 28. Adding a date of birth data element for natural persons in business as sole traders, in partnerships and trading trusts might facilitate stronger verification processes by the Registrar, and also have a positive flow on effect for those interacting with the holder of the NZBN. 29. A date of birth is personal information and might be included in the by election category of public primary business data defined in regulations and also available from that category by consent to a particular use where there is an appropriate consent given. Section 21(b)(ii) and the draft regulations public primary business data available by election/opt in 30. Allowing an entity to choose to make certain information available where there are sensitivities around that information enables that entity a relevant level of control. We note that similarly in the Privacy Act consent is a mechanism recognised as a legitimate control of personal information. 31. Significance of opt in and of consent.-section 21 provides for opt in for data by election and section 26 provides for access by third parties with consent. A consent given under section 26 could overrule the opt in for the search for which the consent is given. 32. The Privacy Act 1993 contemplates collection, use and disclosure of personal information by consent. 33. The details around what is required for consent if added to section 26 consistent with section 6 of the Privacy Act 1993 might enable collection, use and disclosure for verification of public primary business data (defined in regulations as by election information )when sourced from the Register by a third party with consent. 34. Where an individual engages in business and seeks to in effect profit from their customers then they can expect those customers to seek evidence about who the entity is when doing their due diligence on why they should do business with that entity. 35. The classifications of what may be disclosed on the register include election for specific classes of data. 3 (Identity Fraud: A Study, UK Cabinet Office 2002) 4 Section 6 of the Privacy Act 1993 sets out in the Information Privacy Principles consent based controls on collection, use and disclosure. 9

10 36. It is a curious outcome that verifying information from the register has greater protections than section 6 of the Privacy Act yet the context is one where the business entity is soliciting business and enticing others to trust it. 37. As detailed above there are different approaches in the Bill for different searching actors- for the public, the third party and for the government. Veda submits that broadening the mandatory data as outlined earlier in this submission would improve the ability of both the public and businesses to interact with confidence with a business which has an NZBN. 38. Comparing government and non-government agencies- different requirements apply and we submit that the consent given to a third party by an NZBN entity should suffice to go beyond the publically available data on the register where the NZBN entity so indicates. 39. Veda submits that cross referencing to the NZBN for a purpose related to risk assessment of a business should be clearly permitted. Interaction with a business necessitates a level of scrutiny and risk assessment forms part of that. This should be clearly and expressly permitted by the Bill. 40. Where a third party is accessing the register to do this then a consent given by the entity concerned should be sufficient. Veda considers that as drafted section 26 may not permit this and it should be amended to make it clear that this is permitted. 41. Consent is not required for a government agency to access and use fields of primary business data. Instead being an "authorised agency" is required. The authorisation will however flow from government not from the NZBN entity. 42. Contrasting the kinds of authorisation; a direct consent given by the entity concerned should be more powerful or authoritative in that it will arise in a situation where the NZBN entity has freely made a determination about this. 43. Ideally, all data on the register should be accessible if the consent is sufficient and we submit that these kinds of access purpose related consents are manageable in the context of a register build. We acknowledge the Privacy Commissioner will have a view on this. Veda submits that: adequate information to enable verification and a degree of due diligence risk assessment should be available and we set out what that might include and why below. A consent process including intermediaries and also purpose (e.g. AML/CFT) be allowed in section 26. AML/CFT unmet needs 44. Name and a date of birth and address are key elements of identification referenced in the legislation 5 concerning anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT). There is an unmet need for robust verified data to be used for verification for AML/CFT by consent. The mandatory information to be provided should include the same kind of 5 Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act

11 information for partners and sole traders that are required for Directors on the companies register. Veda submits that consideration should be given in section 26 to including a reference to using the Register information for AML/CFT purposes so it is clear that this use is permitted for that purpose. IV. Insolvency 45. Insolvency information on the Insolvency register was also considered a significant link to make with the NZBN register in submissions made on the NZBN previously. The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) 6 detailed that this was not disagreed with by any submitter. Veda submits that a link to the insolvency register must always be apparent on the register and that insolvency information classes such as the No Assets Procedure, the Summary Instalment Order and bankruptcy must be publically available where these exist and can be cross referenced with confidence by the Registrar to an individual. It should be an offence to fail to disclose this information on registration. Similarly any corporate insolvency such as a company receivership of liquidation or winding up must be linked to a company and be part of the public register data. Corporate insolvency such as winding up is handled by the courts and is not handled solely by the Companies Office. Such information will always be pertinent in searching the register and interacting with the NZBN business. 46. For an individual No Assets procedures (a form of limited bankruptcy) and Summary Instalment Orders should also be linked. Doing business is about trust and trustworthiness such as credit worthiness has relevance to whether one might deal with an entity. 47. It seems that Business status refers to active or inactive only. We submit this should also reference solvency. A definition of Status added to section 5 which includes reference to insolvency or an additional field Solvency/Insolvency should be a mandatory publically available data field. 48. For natural persons who have had multiple insolvency events in terms of section 449A of the Insolvency Act 2006 the retention should be indefinite. The section applies: where a person is or has been bankrupt on 2 or more occasions; or is or has been both bankrupt and discharged from the no asset procedure under section A person who is bankrupt should continue to have an NZBN, but with a link to the Insolvency Register. Submitters agreed that that bankrupts should continue to have an NZBN, with this fact flagged on the NZBN register. They also agreed with a link with the Insolvency Register. BusinessNZ and the Retailer s Federation also added that indications of bankruptcy should be removed when the bankruptcy period ends. No submitters disagreed with this proposal. 11

12 Veda submits that: It should be made clear that "solvency" data will be a mandatory publically available data field as public primary business data. This field should be also regularly updated by the Registrar so that it is accurate and up to date. Retention Periods Veda Submits that in order to enable compliance with the Privacy Act 1993-retention periods for each such kind of solvency data should be added to the Bill so that it is clear how long the information may be retained and disclosed for. Intermediary access should be contemplated in section Intermediary access as a conduit for an agency should be contemplated where there is sufficient consent. Section 26 should be amended to contemplate and permit this. Such accesses are commonplace for other data, including but not limited to, for AML/CFT verification, and identity confirmation relating to passports. Intermediaries do currently provide information regarding other registers. 50. For example the consent may be given to a credit provider. There is utility in allowing the credit provider to source multiple data sources as part of risk assessment due diligence and this aspect of due diligence could be facilitated in this way. The Summary Proceedings Act 1957 also contemplates such access by credit reporters as intermediaries in sections 92A to 92I and contains checks and balances related to that which might have relevance as a model. 51. A purpose related amendment using an intermediary access should be added to the Bill. This will enable businesses with NZBNs to reference who they are in a useful way which they and others can derive direct benefits from. It will also facilitate compliance by credit providers (including for example, banks and other lenders) with AML/CFT obligations. 52. Veda provides access to some kinds of data to various government agencies and whether that should also be permitted under intermediary access should be considered. 53. The distinction between government and non-government enables different levels of access which are based on different kinds of authorisation. Veda does not question what government perceives is appropriate for government but we have, as outlined, a strong factual basis and expertise which underpins our submissions regarding the minimum mandatory data fields and also the ability of a third party to go beyond the limitations in the definitions of the data fields in section 23 (with consent which is for that purpose). 54. The utility of consent versus opt in for data is considerable. The opt in concept relates to what the public may see and applies when the data is input into the Register. In contrast the consent, where given, will occur later and can permit for a specific purpose, giving flexibility of use. In our experience such an approach is achievable and enables flexibility over time. Veda submits that intermediary access should be expressly permitted and Section 26 should be amended to explicitly permit this. 12

13 V. Scheduled categories of public primary business data 55. The NZBN Register may contain primary business data (section 20(2) and Schedule (3)). However only disclosure of the public primary business data is permissible (refer section 21, and the Schedule to the provisional draft of the New Zealand Business Number Regulations 2015). 56. Veda submits that some of the data fields which are only available by election should instead be available consistently, and therefore should be in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 of the Bill. 57. These are: For Corporate or public entities: 1. Solvency/Insolvency data and status 2. Business industry classification; 3. Postal address 4. Physical address 5. Principal place of business 6. Directors 7. Website 8. Trading name(s) 9. Phone number 10. An address for the business 11. Other address(es) 12. Australian business number 13. Australian company number 14. Australian Business Name from Australian Business Name Register 15. Australian service address 16. Business Owner And: For Unincorporated entities: 1. Legal entity name 2. Business industry classification 3. Registered address 4. Postal address 5. Principal place of business 6. Director(s) 7. Website 8. Trading name(s) 9. Phone number (for business not the individual) 10. (for the business) 11. Other address(es) 12. Australian business number 13. Australian Business Name from Australian Business Name Register 14. Australian company number 15. Australian service address 16. Business Owner 17. Solvency/insolvency information data and status 13

14 58. These are important intrinsically business-related elements which may not be available to search (as these are not in Schedule 3). 59. A genuine business can grow if there is a level of transparency and a degree of confidence for other businesses and the public regarding where the business actually is and what is behind it. More public information can enable confidence and a legitimate due diligence to be undertaken on that business. All of these fields are critical to assessing who, where and what one is dealing with. 60. Not everyone seeks legal advice about such matters as setting up and running a business and the levels of financial literacy are not very high in New Zealand in our experience. One cannot assume that all users of the register will have the same level of sophistication and the register should assist both the public and business at all levels of sophistication and literacy (financially) to understand their respective obligations and risks. 61. We suggest FAQs on the MBIE website could also outline what each entity such as a partnership is so that those dealing with these entities including a partnership can better understand what they are transacting with. That the partners may be jointly and severally liable could be explained to assist those dealing with the partnership. Transparency regarding who and what are essential to enable confidence domestically and internationally in dealing with New Zealand businesses. The NZBN can be improved if these data elements are publically available. The NZBN register should allow a business to detect who they are really dealing with. 62. Industry type is a useful differentiator too for the public and for other businesses. It is not uncommon for entities to have very similar names but operate in quite different sectors. Knowing who is who in that sense is very useful to enable differentiation and reduce potential for confusion between businesses. 63. The principal place of business should be public data. Candour about this is not unreasonable in trading as a business. Whether this is necessary for government interaction is another question but it is necessary and relevant for business interactions inter se. The geographical indicator may not provide enough information to assist the public or the interacting businesses. Location is relevant to access and to cost which both affect choice and also can shape the interaction with the NZBN business for the consumer and for the public. Veda submits that the categories of information it has set out above should be public primary business data (in part 1 of Schedule 3) VI. Australia 64. Alignment of some kind or a level of consistency Trans-Tasman could have advantages as New Zealand moves towards expanding the relationship between both countries. The introduction of the new ASIC-operated Business Names Register (BNR) in mid-2012 replaced the old state and territory based business name registers - offering a central point to register and renew business names across Australia. In earlier submissions we outlined detail of the ASIC system. We said that: Currently Australia has both an Australian Business Number (ABN) and a Business Name. 14

15 Veda submits that the Australian Business Name and trading name should be part of the public register data and that this should be publically available data which an NZBN should be obliged to disclose (as the link may not always be apparent). D CONCLUSION 1. The NZBN is an opportunity to improve business confidence and interactions for the public, and for the businesses which interact with the NZBN entity. 2. Interaction with a business cannot be separated from risk assessment. Domestically and internationally this has significance. Poor risk assessment related to misunderstanding of who and what the business entity is can undermine the profitability of businesses and of the economy overall. 3. AML/CFT risks can be better addressed with the kind of transparency advocated by Veda in our submissions. New Zealand has a role to play internationally in AML/CFT and we are measured on our level of compliance. The NZBN reforms can enhance this compliance. 4. New Zealand has a very high number of small to medium enterprises. Improving the confidence in business interactions will affect entities with an NZBN and on the register in a positive way- they will be able to say look this is me and expect to be believed. 5. Veda submits that this is an important step to take economically on a range of levels. Our NZBN reforms should be the best they can and thereby take our economic transparency, prosperity and confidence to higher levels. 6. Veda welcomes the Bill and the reform it represents. 7. The NZBN should add value to what a business does by making it easier for everyone they deal with to have a reliable indication that the business is genuinely committed to transparent trading. 8. Veda's submissions set out that the mandatory public information on the register is too narrow as drafted and will not provide an enhanced level of confidence in any significant way. However the changes to the data fields as set out in our submissions relating to the mandatory and by election categories of public primary business data could make a significant difference. 9. Allowing for consent by the entity concerned to enable disclosure of (potentially) all register information can serve to make the register access flexible and updateable to suit the purpose. But it leaves an element of control with the NZBN entity. 10. Permitting intermediary access will make interactions including but not limited to in the contexts of AML/CFT verification and credit-related inquiries more seamless where required. New Zealand has already made commitments internationally on the basis that money laundering of the proceeds of crime, facilitating and funding criminal activities and terrorism should be addressed. If we are perceived as a "weak link" that undermines our reputation as a nation and undermines obligations which we have as a nation assumed and supported. 15

16 11. A record of trusts could be useful for risk assessment, the maintenance of law and order in New Zealand and AML/CFT compliance. The NZBN register should help enable this. 12. New Zealand s position and reputation should be one of requiring transparency in relation to business entities unless there is a very good reason why this should not be the case. The submissions regarding how consent could enable greater insight to more data elements are also important for the success of the reform in terms of the potential difference to be made. 13. Veda would welcome the opportunity to appear before the Committee and speak to its submissions. Michelle Chignell NZ Legal Counsel 16