White Helen; Bayly AndrewHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd like to ask you Minister to consider the statements that you've just made about how you want to really improve things. I'd like you to read and listen to the submissions that are made to you in this exchange that are proposed amendments that would do what it seems to be your intention to strengthen rather than soften the approach in this situation. So I won't talk to all those amendments now because I want to have a meaningful exchange.But I first of all want to talk about the issue of whether there is any red tape in the one that you've just raised about people actually seeing this information that you're talking about. So my understanding of this situation is that the reporting that would be done is on key issues and every six months a big corporation—a very big one—would have to actually gather and report that information about if they are actually delaying payments etc. and then they would give it to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) who are our biggest agency. So it's not the same as Australia because we have MBIE; it's a little bit different. The companies that are involved are not the same as Australia either; it's also a different group of companies so the negotiation was down to $33 million and $10 million of suppliers. So they've got 10 million bucks out there that they're owed at any one time and they're not paying that group of suppliers—that's the mischief that we're getting at. So I'd love your comments on this.So my understanding is that's the data we're gathering and we're getting it to be reported at MBIE which is the body in New Zealand that does things like—for small businesses it's the place you go if you want a builder for an employment agreement. So I would dispute that people don't know and I wondered whether you would have information that is about whether people use the builder for example which is a product that MBIE has put out for small businesses. I for one have used that builder I know lots of small businesses that have and I wonder if you've got any data about something that's an established product used by small businesses and whether it's used in this country because it's not really the same when we're talking about Australia with a different threshold of amount etc. and a different entity involved. So I'd like to know whether you gathered that data at all.I note that when this Act that you are repealing was going through last time you actually suggested a trial. You did it by a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) you suggested a trial—I'm sorry Madam Chair—the Minister in his other capacity as a member of the Opposition at that time put up an SOP which was to suggest a trial. One of the Amendment Papers you'll see is about a proposal which does just that in this situation: it extends the time so we can see what the effect is. So I would like the Minister to consider that and I'd like to come back and discuss that with him at a later time.But I'd like to go through the recommendations from the Australian report which the Minister is relying on and talk about that. The Minister as I understand it has said today that what he wants to do is strengthen this that we have a problem we need to strengthen it and the Australian report has given some concern to him and that he has a lot of faith in the Australian report. So one of the things the Australian report for example does is that it suggests a prohibition on this kind of behaviour. That's actually what it does. It says Don't get rid of this; add to it. Look at a prohibition." I'd like the Minister just to think about that one issue at the moment and I will come back and talk about the others but I don't want to flood him and I would love an exchange. So would he consider a prohibition on this kind of behaviour where we say that it's not OK for businesses? There's no red tape involved in that. None. Absolutely no red tape if we say "It is not acceptable for you to not pay your creditors." So I would point him to the amendment on this point that talks about a prohibition and it says that there's a prohibition so we wouldn't just repeal; we would replace and we would do a prohibition on the late payments of over three months. Now that's quite a generous time frame so I haven't gone for something that's the sun the moon and the stars here. Why aren't we today rather than taking away the one thing we've got looking at this and saying "Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater; let's improve it let's put a prohibition in."? If we're relying on the Australian report it's right at number one of the bullet points: prohibit unfair payment practices; do that.So I won't put all of them. I've got other amendments. I'd like the chance to talk to them and my colleagues would like the chance to talk to their amendments. But I'd really like you to address why we are not prohibiting behaviour that we all agree in this House as far as I understand it is actually really despicable behaviour. Why aren't we prohibiting it?Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing): Thanks Madam Chair. The issue around payment terms—there is a difference between suppliers and contractors contracting with a business and agreeing payment terms and whether in fact the entity that should be paying meets the contractual arrangements. If that occurs and they do not fulfil the bargain of the agreement then that's subject to rules around that. One of the initiatives I've noted is making sure of and raising the awareness of existing redress options under the Fair Trading Act. So I've already noted that that is one of the specific things as part of the package of things I'd like to do to make sure that people are aware that there are redress options under the Fair Trading Act.But your wider issue about payment times and mandating it—it's interesting that you're looking at the Australian response. I read the Australian response very carefully because it's a very similar scheme. You made some points that it was different organisationally different entities involved but actually largely in the main it's very similar. But the Minister states very carefully and specifically "Several stakeholders propose mandating maximum payment times for small businesses." On the face of it—and I think all of us think well maybe that could be an option although people could contract out of it.Initially I considered mandating payment times might be an effective approach but following deeper analysis including considering those in comparable jurisdictions overseas I found mandating would create problems that would overwhelm its usefulness and do more harm than good for small business. These problems include complexity in trying to identify critical payment times creating perverse incentives for existing fast paths to slow their payments to avoid the mandated time unwillingness of most small businesses to actually identify problems and large businesses reducing their procurement from small businesses in favour of others. So I don't accept the idea. I think conceptually it would be great to do it but in practice I don't think it's actually a viable option."