Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well thank you very much Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be able to ask a few questions in regards to the Business Payment Practices Bill. And I want to go to clause 19 actually of Part 2 of this bill which is in regards to the business payment practices register. And clause 19 is in regards to the purpose of that register. In particular 19(b) which outlines the purpose is to help them make informed choices about whether to engage with those entities. And I guess what that—well my questions in regards to that point are as follows: in section 2.4 of the departmental disclosure statement it acknowledges that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has liaised with the Australian officials. I'm interested in particular around whether this aspect around the register and having that register in the list of the entities on that register actually was substantiated in regards to consumers or those wanting more information actually being able to look out for those businesses and make more informed decisions or not. So was that MBIE that substantiate the benefit of 19(b)? The other aspect in regards to that is related to clause 20 which sits—surprising for those watching at home—after 19 in regards to the hierarchy of the clause numbers. It talks about 20(c) which is its registered address". And my question in regards to this is if say hypothetically one was looking on the register and looking out for a business and say for example you lived in Cambridge in the Waikato—choose a place in the world—Andrew Bayly: Pukekohe.SIMON WATTS: Pukekohe. You could say Pukekohe. Let's use an example of a business and let's say you're in Cambridge Mr Bayly and you're looking up a business and its registered address is in Pukekohe but it's actually operating in Cambridge. Is that is going to actually enable 19(b) which is to help make them inform choices? Because if you can't necessarily locate the business that you're after—you know there's a lot of businesses called similar names; so that's not really the aspect—how are we going to get around that and why was there not consideration in regards to the contents of the register actually including its physical address versus its registered address? The registered address obviously can be in some circumstances quite different. And I guess more broadly in regards to that I'm thinking about organisations that have multiple entities within the same group and they're all called the same thing and they're all in different towns but they all do operate individualised payment processes because they're owneroperator businesses operating under the same name and maybe under the same registered address but they have a different location. So you sort of get a sense potentially of the confusion that may arise through someone trying to get information on whether their business is actually one that they want to—as the legislation says—engage with those entities or not. So those are the two questions I've got in regards to those aspects of the clause. And if it wasn't the Australians I think it was noted in the regulatory impact statement in regards to this bill. It did say that they did do a bit of a horizon scan—I'm looking at page 27 of that—in both the UK and the EU. Again just from officials was there any other substantiation actually that this register in any other jurisdictions in the world does actually lead to outcomes where people are able to make more informed decisions? Thank you Minister."