Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. Well to the long list of bills passed by this Government that I've described as a well-meaning waste of time we can add the Business Payment Practices Bill. We've had Rachel Boyack's Plain Language Bill Duncan Webb's directors' duties bill. I can think of a few others but the list is getting long and I don't know how we're going to deal with the repeal of all of this. I think once we get to Government we're going to have to have some kind of omnibus bill the Well-meaning Waste of Time Repeal Bill" or some such.Chris Penk: "Back on Track Bill".Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The "Back on Track Bill"—I like that. But repeal it we will because however well-meaning the Minister is she has just burdened business with more compliance cost for little or no benefit. Why do I say that? Well the purpose of the bill makes it clear: the bill isn't to improve payment practices; it's to create transparency. Now the collection collation and reporting of this data will in and of itself not change behaviour. And there's something about the Kiwi psyche I found when I was advising small business many many years ago—one of the things that we taught small businesses was good credit practice good credit management practice credit control. There's something about New Zealanders that makes them reluctant to ask for the money that's due them to actually pick up the phone and say "Guess what! That invoice is late is there a reason why you haven't paid?" And anyone who's worked in an accounting office knows that the squeaky wheel gets the oil. And indeed when we look at the case for change the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) couldn't make it. We actually have pretty good payment practices in this country particularly if you remove Crown entities from the equation. When you remove disputed payments from the equation bills are paid pretty well on time. Now there are always ratbags and rogues in business as there are in society. Might they be quivering in their boots tonight when this bill is passed? I doubt it. I doubt it very much because as I say it is a well-meaning waste of time. And how do we know this? It's because other jurisdictions have actually tried and failed—by a legislative vehicle—to improve payment practices. The committee heard of the efforts by the Australian and United Kingdom Governments to do just that in 2017 and 2020 respectively and there was no discernible improvement in payment terms. In fact in certain sectors in Australia they're reporting worse payment terms. There we go: the Government gets involved and it gets worse not better. Where have we heard that before? And indeed MBIE didn't even know the scale of the problem. Now we may if the right data is collected and reported in the right way have some kind of transparency on that. But as I say rogue payers are not going to be quivering in their shoes tonight.We also believe that the threshold for compliance with this regime is too low: $33 million is not a lot of money. We've got it in other jurisdictions much much higher than that. And so small business is really facing another example of more compliance costs. I say small businesses I think in turnover that would probably make them medium businesses but it certainly doesn't make them large. They are faced with more compliance costs being imposed on them for very little benefit. But as I say hope is coming. It's only a few short months away before a Government that understands business that understands that every time Government writes a law there is a cost attached and it's an external cost not on the Crown alone but on the businesses who have to pay twice because they pay for their own compliance costs and then they pay for the registrar through their taxes. Already overburdened with regulation this is an unnecessary addition to that. So we will continue to oppose it and then repeal it."