Willis Scott; Kuriger Barbara; Russell DeborahSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Firstly I do want to acknowledge the Minister for the engagement that he has shown particularly to the constructive discussion we've had. Despite it being railroaded through urgency I think there has been some very very constructive and productive discussion at the moment. So I would like to address the title and the commencement and I seek some response from the Minister about clause 1. As the title suggests the clause states that This Act is the Business Payment Practices Repeal Act". What advice if any did the Minister receive about clause 1—that is the title clause—which states that "This Act is the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Act 2024." What was the advice that the Minister received and what alternative titles were considered to create more clarity for the public and for the small businesses about the impact of repealing this Act compared to if it had been left in place? So that's my first question for the Minister. What was the advice and what consideration was there given to a more accurate title for the repeal Act because we do need to make sure that our small businesses can thrive and have an understanding of what happens in the House? Some of it can seem very very opaque. I think clarity is really really important and a title can give us that. On commencement my question concerns clause 2 and I'm interested very much—as Helen White mentioned—to know from the Minister whether he considered a commencement date after the register had been allowed to be established. Perhaps as has been suggested it could be after two years in order to determine whether the regime would be useful for small businesses. So that's effectively a test period and then if not repealing it at all at that point replacing it with a more effective regime. We've heard that the Minister has seven points and perhaps Stuart Smith upped it to nine. That's really good—we're in a bargaining position. But if we can make something happen here that is positive instead of breaking that would be a really really good outcome and I think we do need to know if there's an opportunity to have a bit of a test period. Yes we've certainly heard about the cost to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for doing this but we know that there's a $425 million cost to small businesses in the status quo. So the cost of doing it and of having a trial period is actually minimal compared to the cost of having a test period and giving something a go. We have heard that there are amendments that could be incredibly helpful. Were this to be a trial that we held for two years we could really make something work here because what I've heard from this side has been some really productive constructive elements that could inform how we can do so much better than the Australians how we could make something work for our small and medium enterprises and how we can have a thriving business community but we need to give it a go. We need to be not afraid and not tribal about this. We need to give up this tribalism and simply opposing for the sake of opposing and work on solutions together. That's effectively what has been proposed from members on this side of the Chamber and I beseech you to think about how we can do something better rather than simply rejecting stopping. That's effectively what we're doing. So the questions I've put to you Minister are about the title. If I could come back to the two questions that I've asked: what advice if any did the Minister receive about clause 1—that is the title clause—which states that "This Act is the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Act 2024." and what alternative titles were considered to create more clarity for the public and for small businesses in particular about the impact of repealing this Act compared to if it had been left in place? So what would have been a clearer title and then will the Minister consider a later commencement date to give a trial period that would be useful for small businesses and enable some of the innovations that we've been hearing about? Those are my two questions to the Minister and I would really appreciate an engagement. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take a call from the Hon Dr Deborah Russell but I think the Minister in the course of this debate has made it very clear why a trial period wasn't tenable for the reason that he is actually undertaking this repeal. So I would like questions for the Minister outside of that concept thank you. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair and I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to one of my proposed amendments. I have two proposed amendments for the title and commencement date and I want to speak to one which I think the Clerk might well suggest is frivolous but to me it actually gets to the heart of something that the Minister has talked about and it gets to the heart of what the Minister is proposing to put in place for this particular Business Payment Practices Act. It's the amendment in my name that suggests that in clause 1 we should delete the words "Act Repeal" and we should insert the words "(Asking Big Business to Play Nicely)". So I think we should call this the "Business Payment Practices (Asking Big Business to Play Nicely) Bill". That sounds frivolous but it points up a very very serious issue in this bill and it goes to the heart of this bill. Now part of our problem for small businesses is that they don't know when they're going to get paid. They struggle to get paid on time and there's research from Xero which shows that—I'd have to dig it out. This is going back for a long time now but—oh no 2023. So research from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research shows that it costs small businesses when they get paid late. So what is the solution? Well it's to get paid on time and part of what the Business Payment Practices Act did was it required big business to disclose how long it was taking them to pay bills. It was a—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could we come back to the title and commencement please.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —name and shame strategy. Yes I will thank you Madam Chair. The Minister has mentioned many times in the course of this debate his solutions. We're taking this Business Payment Practices Act away and he's got some solutions and one of the solutions he has proposed is a voluntary code of practice—exactly—from big business. He's going to get together with Business New Zealand and draw up a voluntary code of practice for big business. In other words he's going to ask big business to play nicely when it comes to paying their bills on time. I don't think it's what's going on with this bill.Now of course it is I think not a very suitable strategy. We know that when times are tough one of the easiest ways for a business to get low-cost financing is to stretch out the payment of its bills. It's a long-known strategy. If a business just stretches out that payment it reduces its need for working capital and it reduces its financing costs and all at the expense of small businesses. The Minister has proposed a solution to that. He said "Let's have a voluntary code of practice." Now I think that is—well we'll see; it sounds pretty toothless to me. What we could have done with is in fact what this original bill did: provide access to information about how long businesses take to pay their bills. That's critical information for a small firm. They need to know it. This Minister who says—I do believe him because he's a decent guy. He says that he is concerned for small business he does care about what happens to them and he does care about them. But the solution he's proposed isn't going to work because it's one that requires people to play nicely. With respect business—Carl Bates: You guys know all about what doesn't work. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Oh it's great to have this engagement from the member across the other side but sir take a call—take a call. We have seen on the record that big businesses in this country do not always play nicely—all right—and famously Fonterra a few years ago just didn't play nicely. Now I appreciate that the Minister wants a solution in place and that the Minister is going to try to get a set-up where the big businesses do pay their bills on time but I put it to you that a voluntary code is not it. Nevertheless that's what he is proposing and that's why I have put up this amendment. It does look like it's just frivolous—Carl Bates: Because it is. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: —take a call take a call—but it goes to the heart of this bill. It says that we're asking big business to play nicely."