Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill

I move, That the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.

It was very good listening to the speeches from the Opposition, in particular—although I acknowledge the members from this side of the House—but I think there’s a fundamental discrepancy in the understanding of what we’re trying to achieve. No one in this House wants to see late payment, particularly for small businesses. No one wants to see that, across the House. The issue at hand is: how do you put in place some mechanisms to ensure that payments do occur, particularly from large businesses to small businesses, on a timely basis? Quite simply, the proposition that was put forward by the previous Government is not the solution. They borrowed a solution from Australia without thinking, and, I think, without the practical acumen to be able to work out whether, in fact, it was going to be a good scheme.

It’s interesting looking at the recent review of that scheme in Australia by the Minister, the Hon Dr Craig Emerson. He writes in the covering note—and I quote here—“A well-functioning reporting scheme that reveals the payment performance of large businesses has obvious merit.”—that’s my point; everyone in the House would agree with that—“It would increase Government and community awareness of the payment performance of large businesses.” But immediately following that, he goes on to say, “I find that one of the objects of the Act—to make payment times information publicly available in order to ‘enable small businesses to make more informed decisions about potential customers’—has not been met and is fundamentally unrealistic. I have made this finding for two main reasons. First, awareness of the [scheme] by small businesses is extremely low.”, and he quotes that, accompanying the dashboard, “less than 1 percent of Australia’s 2.5 million small businesses.” are aware of the scheme. The second thing he says is, “Second, and more fundamentally, the object is based on the flawed assumption that small businesses are in a position of market strength to pick and choose among prospective large-business customers. The object fails to recognise the inherent power imbalance between large and small businesses.”

So I quoted that because we are all of a view that we want to see more timely payments. That’s why I said at the start of this bill that when I’ve been looking at what we could do to make sure that we do get more timely payments, the specific measures I’ve put in place, or intend to put in place, are much more effective and will be much more effective, and, in my view, are more practical—namely, making sure and reinforcing that Government agencies should and will pay within 10 working days. That’s $51 billion of expenditure, which is, roughly, about a third of the economy, and we will report their outcomes in a transparent way. Secondly, we want to extend that to other Crown entities, but we do need to go through a consultation process, and, of course, I’m working with the Minister of Finance on it. So that’s what we can do for Government in terms of existing payment times.

But the much more fundamental thing that I am particularly concerned about and want to encourage as much as possible—particularly with small businesses—is the use and uptake of e-invoicing. That’s why we’ll be asking Government agencies to put in place e-invoicing - capable systems—and some of them have, but many of them don’t—and, secondly, encouraging and incentivising, rather than requiring, small businesses to adopt e-invoicing, which is probably one of the biggest digital enhancements that we can achieve in New Zealand and it will drive some of the biggest productivity gains, and that is by making sure that if you use e-invoicing, particularly with the Government, you’ll get paid in an even shorter period of time of five working days.

Then, the second aspect of it outside of Government is working with large businesses. When you are talking about big businesses, the group that Kirk Hope is talking about at Business New Zealand represents about 65 percent of GDP in New Zealand—180 businesses—and making sure that they have clear code around when they do pay small businesses. I take on board the Opposition’s comments about large businesses not paying and the impact on cash flow—I understand that—but that is probably the biggest start we can make in terms of being clear with them about what are the payment times.

So that is the purpose of the bill. It’s not necessarily saying that we want to make it easier or that there’s no obligations on large businesses. It’s actually quite the reverse, and this is what the package of elements that have been proposed for this bill are actually about.

It’s about improving those payment times, and the simple fact is that you can go and get this information at any one point in time for a mere cost of approximately $35. That is why we think this is a waste of time, and the reason this is being done in urgency—just to remind the House yet again for those who weren’t here for the first reading speech—is that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment are about to commit at least $2 million to $3 million or possibly more on putting in a system that will mean that results are often 10 months out of date, and of course many large businesses are going to incur huge amounts of time putting in a system that at the end of the day, according to the Australian situation, will deliver no discernible benefits.

That is why we’re proposing to repeal this as soon as possible. It’s to save the Government money and to save businesses money but also to put in a much more effective system.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will absolutely try and engage here in a way that is a genuine debate with the Minister with regard to this issue, but I am yet to be convinced that what he is doing is what he thinks he’s doing, because what he is talking about is a purpose of a bill which is not the purpose of this bill, plainly, if you read the bill. The bill is a repeal. It simply takes away the one thing that is there now and replaces it with zero. There is nothing in replacement.

It is a situation where the Minister accepts there is a problem. In fact, he accepts there is a problem and has said so openly, and yet what he is doing is he’s letting big business off the hook. He’s saying, “Government can do this.” Well, Government actually has been doing this—Government has been on a pathway to making sure that they do comply. This isn’t about Government; this is about our biggest businesses holding it over our little businesses, and it is a distraction to talk about Government. Government should do its bit—absolutely—but so should our big businesses when faced with the stories like Reuben Davidson told of his constituent.

It’s not good enough—absolutely not good enough—and what the Australian legislation review did was, actually, not talk about getting rid of a law like this, and, in fact, their threshold was higher. It talked about adding and improving, and I am up for that conversation today. So you will see amendments on the Table, Minister, which talk about adding to this the very tools that the Australians are talking about, because, yes, we’re all up for a conversation about prohibiting this behaviour, for example.

The IT system point I want to respond to, because while the IT system has been talked about as a waste of time for these big businesses, I’d like New Zealanders to think about what that would mean. It means our big businesses will be keeping a record of what they are doing out there, whom they’re paying, whom they’re not paying, and how long it’s taking them. That to me seems a really good use of money by a big company, because what it’s doing is it’s holding itself to account.

So when the Minister talks about how he’s been in discussions about how we might get a voluntary code for these big $100 million operations, he is talking about a voluntary code based on—what? No IT system and no reporting in this area? That’s what I suspect. It will be in a vacuum of information.

So I take the point from the New Zealand First speaker today that data is important—I agree. Data is important. Data is important, and it’s important that our big businesses keep this kind of data. They’re big businesses; they’re not little ones. They’re absolutely capable of keeping this information, and if they turn a blind eye to it, it’s because it’s in their interests. It is in their interests at the moment to not pay people, because they keep the interest, as my friend Ingrid Leary talked about.

So we have to change the dial, and we shouldn’t be dialling down and taking away the one tool that we’ve got here. We should be dialling up in this area. We should be thinking, “What can we do more to add to this legislation?”

So I say to the Minister that this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you don’t think this is strong enough, Minister, then it is time to add to this legislation, and you can do that cooperatively with the Labour Party and the Green Party because the Green Party and the Labour Party and the Māori Party are all absolutely keen on seeing our small businesses not suffer in the way that Mr Davidson talked about. We would like to see more, not less, in this area. We would like to see these big businesses play their part in New Zealand society, and not just skim off the top the interest rates by delaying payment.

That has been going on, and it still is going on, but, actually, this legislation did make a change to the mentality of New Zealanders, because I think New Zealanders decided that wasn’t OK, and I think even the National Party’s statements on this, which say, “This is a problem we’ve got to fix.”—they’re influenced by this legislation and this discussion, which said that it was not OK.

We are halfway there, and we will go the whole way. There will be amendments on the Table today, Minister, which I would urge you to consider. Those are amendments that are about improving this legislation, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Now I wanted to make a comment about the earlier speech that the Minister made, because he said that the last piece of legislation—this piece of legislation that has been repealed today—was rammed through the select committee. Oh, if only we were so lucky to have had this legislation rammed through a select committee—I’d quite like to do that. I would quite like to have it rammed through a select committee so that the small businesses in New Zealand can have a say on what they think this is about and what they think the impact is, because that is the process that they’re missing out on here. It is possible for the parties in the Opposition to put up amendments and talk to the constituents they’ve got—and they’ve done a good job of doing that today, and you will see the results—but that is not the same as our small businesses and our contractors coming to a select committee and talking about this stuff.

Now, one of the comments that I got from one of the Government members today was to correct me over what I was saying when I said that contractors were affected by this, and talking about how it was just suppliers. That is exactly the kind of myth that I would love to see busted, not by me, but by the individuals who would come to a select committee and say, “Oi! This happened to me. This happened to me for years, and I lost a lot of money over it. I lost my house over it. This happened to me because I was tied in to one of our big, very wealthy companies and they deliberately did not pay me.”

I take the goodwill that I hear from Andrew Bayly about recognising there is a power differential here and that perhaps just shaming the companies and reporting the figures isn’t enough. Maybe we need to go a bit further, and maybe it is time—maybe this is our opportunity to do it. So I invite the Government to think right now about the amendments on the Table that would add to this legislation, would add teeth to it, perhaps, that weren’t there, and would recognise, perhaps, further the power differential between the parties which means that someone who is dealing with one of our big companies—and it is often a sole supplier or a trader or a contractor; all those people—isn’t in a position to say no to these terms. In fact, they are absolutely broken, often, by it, and it is totally reprehensible behaviour.

So I ask the Government to consider those amendments, because these 100 days just seem to have been about tearing everything down, and the focus has all been on supporting those big, big companies. We’ve had things like the trial periods for employees go out to our big companies, not our little ones. Our little ones were already in a different situation, but it’s our big companies that have been focused on.

I’m worried about things like Labour’s retention money provision in the building supply industry being pulled back as well, because it’s very similar. It’s part of a raft of seeing a problem. What happened in that situation is so similar. Our big companies were holding retention money from our builders—our small businesses—and they were actually holding that money and using it and abusing it when the work had been done. That kind of rip-off is a parallel to this one. We changed that law, and I was really proud of it.

I would hate to see that as part of the next wave of changes because this Government is so focused on the big players and has some sort of myth that keeping the big players flush with the money from the small players is, somehow, good for our productivity. I say it is not. What is good for our productivity is getting small businesses like this paid on time, paid when they’ve done the work, and not waiting, waiting, cap in hand, to be perhaps paid, maybe, when somebody wants to, knowing full well—as the big businesses do—that the small companies can’t take this matter to the court because it’s too expensive. They can’t afford to offend the person that they rely upon for their income.

So I say let’s make this a positive change today. Let’s look at the amendments that we’ve made, and, instead of tearing down the house and burning everything that anyone’s ever done that’s constructive in this country, let’s make one of the actions in these 100 days be to build a better law, to build more protection around our small businesses, and to favour them for once over our big companies and actually change the dial in this country.

I want to commend Helen White’s call for the Government to pay attention to what we can do, because it is quite apparent that the Government is mostly concerned with breaking, not creating, and we have an opportunity to do so much better. Previous National Governments haven’t been so destructive. Perhaps it’s the major party’s partnerships that are pushing them in this direction, because it is clear that the Business Payment Practices Act was not perfect—that’s true—but does it need to simply be repealed and we’re being left with nothing because you haven’t got the ability to create something, to make something, to improve and to amend?

We can see the value, certainly, in ensuring Government agencies pay on time. That can be amended and that could be part of the Act. How do we incentivise small and medium sized enterprises to use e-invoicing? Now, that’s something that I would like to know more about, because it’s not simple to ask people who are dependent on rural broadband—because our rural communities are suffering; those who are working in our national space—to invoice without good connectivity. What are we going to do to ensure that e-invoicing is available to everyone? Are we going to also improve rural broadband? Are we going to deal with the infrastructure crisis?

We seem to chop and change with this new Government. What we have, clearly, is an upside down approach, because the Government is claiming they’re simply going to repeal and then, at some point, replace. Again, we’ve heard about the step backwards. We’ve been taking a leap backwards over the last 100 days—it’s simply “Repeal, repeal, repeal.”—and a clear code for big business is needed.

We’ve heard the Government say that they want to save businesses money, but which businesses do you want to save money, really? Is it the businesses who might donate, because this is a real concern for us? If the Government is simply wanting to ensure that big businesses don’t meet their obligations and are not required to and it is not really concerned about the culture change we need in big business, then you would certainly not want to be repealing this legislation right now, or the Government would be concerned with making amendments to ensuring it serves its purpose.

I think there is good reason to be concerned with the Australian scheme. It’s an opportunity to learn from it; not an opportunity to say that because it’s not perfect, we need to reject it. The perfect is the enemy of good in this. We need change. We need change for our small and medium enterprises.

We need change for our businesses so that people don’t have to forgo their homes, so that they don’t have to have to fail, so that our innovators, our risk takers, can thrive, can build a thriving economy, can build community enterprise, can pay their wages, can pay overheads, and can ensure regional development. What we’re seeing with this backward approach is simply more of the same: simply supporting big business—the big corps—rather than the 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand.

The Government isn’t looking after business; the Government is looking after corporates. That’s what this repeal is all about. It is not looking after those who are the backbone of our economy. It’s not looking after those who have families, who work, who employ people; it’s looking after the corporates. That is what is so disappointing about this bill, because the Government has claimed in the past that they are the Government for business—clearly not. Clearly, this Government is a Government for corporates; not for business, not for the majority of New Zealanders. That is a real concern.

We care. We care about our community, we care about our small businesses, we care about our small and medium enterprises, and we want to ensure that there is legislation and there is a cultural shift so that we support the good corporates who do right by our small businesses and we encourage the bad ones to do so much better. This was a small step that this Government wants to take away, repeal with nothing else, and not put anything in its place. The Government says that there’s something nice coming, but hasn’t provided the option for us to look at it.

Hon Andrew Bayly: I’ve told you the seven different things we’re going to do.

SCOTT WILLIS: The member told us the seven different things—that’s right—and has simply placed a repeal of an Act in front of us. So that’s the problem. The problem is that the member doesn’t seem to have a clear idea about how we are going to support our small and medium enterprises in any meaningful way.

There is clear evidence that there’s a lack of understanding of the challenges they face, and we have heard evidence from across the bench. From our Labour colleagues, we have heard evidence of how they are struggling—how our small and medium enterprises are doing it so hard. We have so many examples of people who are going to the wall because the payments do not come in on time, and this is why it is so disappointing that we can’t hear from them. We can’t have an opportunity to listen to them in select committee and make good decisions. We are rushing this through under urgency for no good reason, except that the member seems enamoured with urgency to make the changes that the member requests and requires.

I don’t buy the argument that at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, there’s going to be a blowout of costs. We do need IT and we do need data collection. There is no waste in ensuring we’re doing something better; there is a waste in the loss of income to our small and medium enterprises that continues with the repeal of this Act. So I would urge the member to look at the amendments that are being put forward and to make some changes that will ensure that we’ve got some teeth to ensure that we’re not forgetting our small and medium enterprises, which are the backbone of our economy.

Simply, I think—and I appeal to the member—we have a responsibility to foster an economy that uplifts everyone, not just the privileged few, and that means looking after small and medium enterprises, not simply the corporate donors to the National Party coffers. So I would just like to reiterate that we hear again and again and again that the National Party wants to get us back on track, and yet all we’ve seen is back on baccy—back on baccy—with the repeal of the smoke-free Act. There is so much more you can do, and repealing this Act is not going to get us there. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand businesses are in a thicket of regulation: compliance, the different laws we have to go through—I mean, as a small-business owner, I think we all know how hard it is to keep track of all the different things that Government forces us to do. This sort of regulatory burden adds to the thicket of red tape. It adds to the cost of running businesses. It means that if we can do anything to relieve another burden on any type of business—small, large, medium—it’s all important so that we can pass benefits on to customers by not spending extra.

I think the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has it at $26 for a paper invoice, instead of encouraging people into e-invoicing for $10. These sorts of things can improve this life for all New Zealanders when the costs to actually supply goods and services are relieved.

I have heard from on the other side of the House that this means that we are going to be mistreating our medium and small businesses. I think medium and small businesses need to be looking at who they’re doing business with. It is something that everyone has to take responsibility for, and it doesn’t mean that you can’t already access information from your networks and from people you interact with about the business practices of the people whom you interact with. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, and having been, well, a solopreneur for most of my working life, in a coaching and consulting small businesses, I can assure people on the other side that no one on this side wants to see small businesses fail. No one on this side wants to see late payment for small businesses or other solopreneurs out there who struggle with this. It is known—we know about it.

What we want for small business and for solopreneurs is to have the ability to have a more informed decision-making process when they are thinking about their potential customers. I know that smaller businesses will have access to data through the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), but the reality is: will they use it? I know from speaking with many of my clients that what stresses them is compliance—things they don’t understand. They wouldn’t know how to interpret the data that is held by MBIE. So these are some factors that we are taking into account, because they are specialists in a certain field but they’re not specialists in business and in interpreting data. So that is why things like this stress them. What does stress them is having more compliance costs, and that is why New Zealand First is commending this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise for a second time in this debate. I just want to acknowledge Mr Bayly, who is still here. Not often does the Minister stay to listen to the debate, so I want to just make mention of that, and for giving us the opportunity to eyeball you in this debate and have our points accepted by the Minister. I’m sure you’re here to ensure that you take all of the information that’s provided from this side of the House and make the changes that need to be made to ensure that this is an awesome bill.

Anyway, I feel for our small businesses at this time because, unfortunately, this particular bill favours corporations over small business. Like I’ve said, 97 percent of small businesses here in Aotearoa are small businesses. That’s 546,000 small businesses that are affected by this particular piece of legislation. The majority of Māori businesses are small to medium sized enterprises and so this will really affect our Māori small businesses, who we know firsthand have problems with ensuring that those people that they provide services and goods for pay their part of the bill.

This is not about online invoicing and manual invoicing; this is about paying on time. This piece of new legislation allows big businesses a four-month period to pay those bills. Small businesses don’t have four months—they don’t have 120 days—but they need to have those bills paid on time. If you’ve got a company that has 20 people or less, they need to ensure that they can pay those whānau, because the trickle-down effect and the impact of not paying those bills means that people cannot pay the rent.

Look, we’re in a cost of living crisis, as we speak. It means that people cannot pay their bills, cannot put food on the table, cannot get those kids to school, and now they’re having to pay for their lunches because they’re taking lunches away from those particular tamariki.

This is the trickle-down effect. It’s not just the impact on the small businesses but those who work for those small businesses. So we need to make sure that we put belts and braces around legislation so that it ensures that the safety of all of those people who live in Aotearoa that work for those 546,000 small businesses here in Aotearoa is not impacted. But they will be impacted because that side of the House—the Government—want to ensure that they look after their corporate and rich mates. That’s just the way it is. The between 2 percent to 10 percent that control 50 percent of this country’s wealth—that’s who they’re protecting in this particular legislation. They don’t give a damn about those small-business owners. They don’t give a damn about those people who work for those small businesses—this is what the issue is.

We’ve got, in 2023—according to Centrix figures—35 percent of companies having filed for liquidation, year on year, with construction among the worst. Māori make up most of the construction businesses in terms of being labourers and workers in that particular field—Māori and our Pacific brothers and sisters. This is where the issues are, and so we need to make sure that those companies are being paid at the right time.

This is not about invoicing. This is not about a data matrix. This is about ensuring that people can pay the bills, that people can feed their tamariki, and that people have the dignity of a living wage. This is what this issue is about. Let’s not tinker around the sides, let’s not decorate this Christmas tree with a whole lot of lights and glittery balls—this is not about that. This is about ensuring that small businesses have the mana and the dignity to be able to survive but also to be able to pay those who work for them. We do not commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

I wonder if this Government ever gets tired of simping for the big corporates and the 1 percent, because assuming that getting rid of a disclosure regime on late payments will actually do anything but simply benefit those who are already creaming it at the top is an illusion. Let’s just be clear that what this Government is doing is simply making it easier for the big corporates to get away with and not be held accountable for late payments to those smaller business.

It’s interesting, because in practice, with what the Government’s been doing throughout the term, this has been a Government of just moving us backwards, repealing pieces of legislation, and offering no substantive alternatives. If I go back to the Business Payment Practices Bill’s second reading, the debate on the Act that we’re now repealing, the Minister at that time talked about—and I quote—“We recognise that businesses need to have prompt payments”, but he also said he didn’t think this was a solution. Fine! If he thinks that big businesses need to have prompt payments and then all he is presenting to us is repealing the disclosure regime that we have and not offering alternatives, he needs to be upfront to the community that all he actually wants to do is make it easier for those big businesses.

There are real economic costs to our communities and to small businesses as a result of these late payments. Let’s make it clear that, actually, all that the status quo has enabled is accumulation of wealth at the top at the expense of everybody else, and, yes, this includes the petite bourgeoisie that, in theory, capitalism is supposed to support. But, in practice, all that we are seeing is a continuous accumulation of resources, and this Government is enabling it.

So the Green Party won’t be supporting this bill, simply by nature of the fact that it is just repealing a disclosure regime that could have been improved when the Government is offering no alternative and, at the same time, for a Minister that during the previous bill was complaining and calling on the previous Minister to get out and talk to people on the street, he seems really afraid of actually getting feedback around the repeal that he is putting forward. He’s actually afraid of going through a select committee process and getting feedback from the smaller businesses and the workers, because if we look at the departmental disclosure statement, it’s so clear that there was no adequate stakeholder consultation as part of the creation of this repeal.

So he’s just going off vibes. He’s going off vibes and an ideology that will benefit those at the top. It’s interesting that the speakers on the Government side talk about how they really worry about all the additional costs and compliance mechanisms that they have to go through, but then they have to caveat it with all businesses, including big corporates, because, actually, this bill only added a disclosure regime to those at the very top. Let’s make it clear that, actually, this is not about supporting all businesses; it’s about supporting those businesses that already have the resources and that benefit from withholding prompt payments.

At the time of the second reading debate on the previous bill, the Minister also talked about what he thought the biggest issue at the time for him was: “The biggest issue is its focus on large companies.”—so he said it himself. The focus isn’t broad compliance mechanisms; it’s the fact that big businesses were being targeted by this legislation. These are the Minister’s own words, and then he tried to deflect at the time. He said that, actually, in his view, Government departments were some of the biggest culprits in late payments—OK, fine. If he thinks that more work needs to be done in ensuring that Government departments are prompt with their payments, he could be initiating work to actually address that.

Hon Andrew Bayly: I have—I have.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: But he could be presenting a bill rather than wasting our time in this place, simply simping for big businesses. If the Minister is so confident that he is doing the work on this, he could actually be introducing bills and having us do bills around this. So let’s make it really clear: all this Government wants to do in this bill is repeal a disclosure regime that would have actually created accountability mechanisms, and, at the same time, I want to peg it back to the fact that he had an opportunity to improve the regime rather than scrapping it and benefiting those at the top.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s quite incredible what we just heard. Clearly, the member Ricardo Menéndez March did not hear what the Minister said in his first reading speech, and indeed in his second reading speech. He is going to bring forward seven initiatives that will go much further than this current bill does and in a much more efficient way that doesn’t add a whole lot of costs to businesses. We heard that it’s going to cost $2 million to $3 million for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s own IT system, let alone the costs that the businesses would have to implement to get compliance up with this particular legislation.

Some of the speeches seem to assume that the current legislation is saving all of the businesses from being not paid on time and that that is being forced by this legislation. That’s not the case. It’s a reporting Act—that’s all it is. That information is actually available from four other entities, plus Centrix—which the Minister alluded to in his first reading speech—for a cost of $35.

So it’s all there. This is just going to add costs and create a whole lot of inefficiencies. Therefore, I commend this wonderful bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think if we look at this bill, the legislation that we’re repealing could have been the “Look Before You Leap Bill”, it could be called the “Know Before You Go Bill”, and it could be called the “Knowledge is Power Bill”, and that would be good for small business. What this repeal could be called is the “Think Big Bill” or the “Love Big Bill”, because this is really the “Save Big Business Money Bill”—that is what it is.

I want to start by coming back to one of the pieces of text that I shared in my first speech on this bill, just in case some members missed the message in it the first time, because I think it’s a really important message. It’s a message direct from a small business, and it’s a reminder that our small businesses are all about people. So this is a message: “Running a business is hard. Being an employer is hard. Paying for kai, staff, rent and the rest; is hard; and spending my time asking to be paid, over and over for mahi we’ve already done … that’s … hard!”

The message is pretty clear in that transcript from Sachiko, who owns Kai Connoisseurs, a pretty impressive small business that punches above its weight. It’s based in Hampshire Street in the heart of Aranui and it provides not just amazing fry bread, although I will go on once again to put it on record that I absolutely recommend that, but also jobs—amazing jobs—for the local community and a really, really good strong business in that community. The message is really simple: being a small business is hard, and please prioritise paying your bills.

Now, I’d also like to pick up on something that another member said just now in one of their speeches. I’ll start by going back to the policy statement on the repeal: “The Act was put in place to address long business-to-business payment times by requiring large entities to disclose their payment practices on a public register.”—and this is the bit that I find insulting—“However, the Government’s view is that most small businesses will not have time to search for payment data on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Internet site and that, even if they can find it”—even if they can find it—“and interpret it correctly, it would be unlikely to impact their decisions about who to do business with.”

The implication here, in my opinion, is that we’re suggesting—and one member reiterated this in their speech just now—that the people who own and run and are at the heart of our small businesses are somehow not smart enough or clever enough to be able to go online and look at a guide that tells them whether they’re going to be paid and whether their business will survive. Now, what are they supposed to do instead with that time that they apparently don’t have to go online and find that information? They’re expected instead to just spend that time waiting for payment—just waiting for payment. I think that’s absolutely insulting, and I think it really disrespects the tenacity, the cleverness, the smartness, the intellect, the passion, the commitment, and the drive that our small-business owners have. I find that really insulting—really insulting—to our small businesses.

Now, the other part here, which it goes on to say, is that “The repeal of the Act will remove compliance costs that would have applied to large entities.”, and that comes back to the “Love Big Bill”. So it makes sure that big business doesn’t have to pay any more money to be in business, and all of the pressure goes on our small businesses to do whatever they can to survive, and “Good luck to them.” is the message this bill sends—“Good luck, good luck.”

So, coming back to a point that I made earlier and that other members on this side of the House have reiterated, ultimately, this repeal is of legislation that makes sure 3 percent of businesses provide information to make it easier, to make it more viable, and to make it sustainable for the 97 percent of small businesses to stay in business, and that’s in all of our interests. I don’t think there’d be a member in this House who would be prepared to suggest it’s a good idea for small businesses to fail.

Now, the Minister also spoke to there being seven other steps that are being taken to support small businesses. Well, why not take eight steps? Why not keep this in place and add your seven? If you really believe in backing small business, why limit yourself to seven steps? I say take eight. Now—

Stuart Smith: What about nine?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: The member has suggested nine. He’s seen the eight and raised me nine—I’m not going to argue against that. I’d love to know what the suggestion for the ninth is—I would love to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Gambling in the House!

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —know what the suggestion for the ninth is.

Now, I’m going to read this one more time because I think this is a really, really important message to have on record that supports the argument to not repeal this bill: “Running a business is hard. Being an employer is hard. Paying for kai, staff, rent and the rest; is hard;”—

Hon Members: We know.

REUBEN DAVIDSON: I’ll pause because there are members on that side of the House who holler back and say, “We know.” They don’t say, “We know.” in the all-inclusive “All members in this House know.” They say, “We know.” in the exclusive “We are the only members of this House who’ve run or owned or had small businesses”—who’ve been employers.

If there was a show of hands, I think that we would see that there are small-business owners and employers in every part of this House, and the argument constantly pushed from that side of the House that it’s some exclusive little club that only members of those parties in Government have ever been a part of is absolutely a hollow argument. The fact that some of those members have been in small business and want to not do everything—to not take eight steps or nine steps but only seven steps—to support small businesses is, I think, pretty embarrassing. I would be embarrassed myself to be in this House and be pulling back on legislation like this that sets out to support the small businesses and to support the people, because let’s not forget that it’s easy to talk about small business and it’s easy to take the people out of small business, but small business and small businesses are people, and that’s ultimately who we’re here to represent and who we are here to support.

Now, I didn’t finish the quote that I was re-reading, so I’m going to go back to it. I’m going to pick up from the second line, which says, “spending my time asking to be paid,”—

Hon Andrew Bayly: It’s going to be a long Friday, isn’t it?

REUBEN DAVIDSON: —“over and over for mahi we’ve already done well that’s … hard!” The fact that members don’t even want to hear it—don’t even want to hear it. Members just want to holler back, rather than hearing the very real testimony of a small-business owner in this House. They want to repeal a bill that sets out to give small business better service and better protection, and then they don’t even want to hear what those small-business owners have to say. I think that’s a concern. I would be a concerned if I was part of a Government that didn’t want to hear from small and local businesses. I would be very concerned.

With the last 45 seconds that I have—the last 45 seconds that I have—I would like to say that, essentially, what’s happening here is in the David and Goliath battle between small business and big business, this repeal takes the slingshot away from David. It says, “Go out there and take on Goliath. We won’t do anything to help you, but good luck. Good luck—good luck.” It’s the “Good Luck, Think Big, Love Big Business Repeal Bill”, and I think those members should think twice about what they’re doing to serve and represent the people who are in small businesses in their community.

I’d just like to get us back on track in this debate here today, because we seem to have moved off the issues. We totally agree with that side of the House that we are the “Government of Small Business”. We are aspirational for small business, and we want our economy to get ahead, but that is not with regulation, red tape, and compliance.

Coming back to the issues, we agree that businesses need to pay on time, and we’re not refuting that. But that is not done with more regulation and red tape being inflicted on business, which costs more and takes more time.

I’d just like to read out some of the things that our Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing has already said in his speech—which, obviously, on that side of the House, you aren’t listening to—that we will be doing, and that’s reinforcing the requirement for Government agencies to pay ordinary creditors and ramping up the adoption of e-invoicing. That’s innovation. That’s innovation, which we understand and which, obviously, on that side of the House, you don’t understand. There are many things—there are actually seven things—that we’re going to implement. We’ve got a plan, and it’s not done through having more regulation. So I commend this bill to the House.

I do want to acknowledge the enthusiasm in this House—maybe some members need morning tea—but if there are going to be discussions, there are a lot of places out in the hallways for you to have that.

I’d like to just take a moment to talk about the use of urgency, and I raise this because the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing himself raised it in his contribution. I think, for the benefit of those watching from home, it’s good to pause and look at what is happening and has happened over the last 97 or 98 days in terms of the use of urgency and what that means. We’ve got a little bit of time to do that, and this bill, again, is being passed under urgency, but there’s not a lot of knowledge out there about what urgency involves. What it does, Mr Speaker, as you well know, is it extends the hours in which we can sit, but it is also something that is passed by a simple majority. So there are no real checks and balances to the use of urgency, apart from, perhaps, the media—the fourth estate—picking up and questioning it, or apart from people at home questioning why a Government would want to put things through urgency, which diminishes the checks and balances through the democratic process.

Urgency enables a block of work to be finished. We’ve heard that the Government is wanting to finish its block of work under its 100-day plan—its coalition agreement—but that is no justification to be using urgency to move bills that do not speak to what was campaigned on in the election. To contextualise this, that includes really significant pieces of legislation like the Resource Management Act reforms, like the smoke-free reform, like Te Aka Whai Ora. We’ve just heard announced at an event today that there is going to be fast-track consenting bill introduced to the House tomorrow.

This bill that we are looking at now sits in that suite of bills that have been where urgency has been used, and what that does mean is, obviously, there won’t be a select committee process. That means also that today, over the next few hours, we will see this repeal bill go through; normally, that would take a minimum of four days. So the reason I’m raising this is because we are not going to have a select committee stage here for this. It means we are not going to hear from the voices of small business, which is why so many people on this side of the House have been bringing that voice into the House, because, once again, we don’t have the opportunity to hear directly from those businesses that would have supported this.

I can say that as somebody who has owned a small business, and as somebody who knew what it was like to lose sleep at night, not knowing if I could pay contractors because somebody in the video industry supply chain that I worked in when I made TV shows had been late in paying me and had not put me on notice of that, I would lie awake at night thinking, “How am I going to pay my contractors? Are they going to want to never come and work for me again if I’m late? Am I going to need to get some bridging finance?” I had no certainty as a small-business owner, and that is really what we are talking about today.

We can take out all the window dressing, as Rawiri Waititi has said, but at the end of the day, this is really about paying people on time and giving them certainty, and nobody needs certainty more in the business environment than small business. Cash flow is absolutely critical. When we applied for funds from Creative New Zealand, there had to be a cash-flow template, and that was worked out really carefully so that we as small-business owners could manage the cash flow and could meet those payments. That was all very fine in theory, but if somebody in that supply chain was late in their payment, it had a knock-on effect right through the whole system, all of whom were really small players, apart from the big TV networks. So it was a really perilous, perilous industry to work in, and my heart goes out to those who do run small businesses and do have to deal with that uncertainty on an ongoing basis.

I question the Minister: when he talks about a voluntary code, I’m deeply suspicious of that code, because, as Helen White pointed out, we don’t have the infrastructure in place yet for it to be implemented. There is no certainty that the code will attach the reputational risk to big business that is available to them in the current Act, and when we speak about big business, we are speaking here about big tobacco, big pharmacy, big fast-food business, and those who want to pay their employees just the minimum wage.

So, in my final moments, I also just want to say to the Minister that we had both agreed about proportional approaches to regulation. That’s what I believe the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment was doing in this situation. It’s a shame he’s not giving them the opportunity to do that, and I cannot support this bill.

The member’s time has expired.

I am glad that I’m able to stand for a second time to commend this bill to the House, because I joined this Parliament, this House, because I see so much more aspiration for New Zealand and for many, many of our small, medium, and large businesses and employers because they have the aspiration to grow New Zealand so that we have a bigger economy, so that every individual in New Zealand gets better outcomes at the end of the day. I came to this House to support faster innovations and to support creative innovations that small, medium, and large businesses can actually go out, grow their business, and bring more for everyday New Zealanders. So, therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

I want to acknowledge Minister Andrew Bayly, one of the more thoughtful and amusing and entertaining members on that side of the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That’s a compliment.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I had the pleasure of serving alongside him on the Finance and Expenditure Committee last term, and we did a lot of good work together.

This is an interesting debate, because on the face of it, if you take the rhetoric at face value, there’s some level of agreement across the House, and the Minister, when he spoke, was at pains to make the point that he agreed with the problem definition. Of course everybody wants to see small businesses paid on time, and I would submit that there is a lot of agreement that small businesses play a critical part in the economy. They account for 97 percent of all of our enterprises, they employ vast numbers of New Zealanders, there’s half a million or more small businesses, and I would say everybody in this House recognises that the people who start and run small businesses work incredibly hard. They are workers as well as owners and entrepreneurs, and they take enormous risks often with their family assets in order to start small businesses. So they deserve all of the support that our Parliament and Governments can give them.

The Minister also recognised, if I heard it correctly, that big businesses have routinely been late payers and so there is a problem that needs to be solved, and what I heard him argue was that he just has a different way of solving this problem. Now, Ingrid Leary, my colleague, made the point that for small businesses, security of cash flow is one of the most important things, and I think everybody can see that. When people don’t pay on time, it puts on huge stress and puts those businesses at risk. One way to think about it is that you’ve got some of the largest, most powerful corporations in the land routinely late paying small businesses because they know they can get away with it, and they’re either doing it deliberately to look after their own cash flow, using small businesses, effectively, as a bank, taking advantage of no-interest loans from struggling small-business owners.

The Minister says he has a different way of doing it, so what’s his plan? He told us that he’s working on getting Government departments to step up and do their bit and pay on time. He is pledging to consult with Crown entities—we don’t know how long that will take—he’s talking about a voluntary code of conduct for large corporations, and he’s talking about incentivising e-invoicing. But is that a credible plan to deal with this problem?

Hon Member: Yes.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Is it? I don’t see it. We’re talking about an entrenched behaviour by large private corporations systematically late paying to the detriment and disadvantage of struggling small-business owners from one end of this country to the other, and a voluntary code of conduct? These companies are getting massive financial benefit from this errant behaviour, and a voluntary code of conduct is intended to change that behaviour!

There’s a word for where you profess sincere concern for a problem, but, actually, your actions don’t reflect that. There’s a word for it, and it’s gaslighting. I can’t help but conclude that that is what is going on here. There’s a professing of concern or feeling that these small-business owners are being ripped off, but, actually, what does this bill do? It takes away a public disclosure regime that would name and shame the large corporations that are ripping off small businesses. It takes that away and replaces it with a voluntary code of conduct.

We’ve heard a lot from members on the other side about compliance costs and red tape, and how terrible compliance costs and red tape are. Yes, it’s true that the legislation that’s being repealed will remove compliance costs for our large private corporations—it will—because they will no longer have to comply with a public disclosure regime. But if there wasn’t a problem to be solved in the first place, we wouldn’t need to ask them to comply with a disclosure regime.

I’m afraid to say it, but this is an example that we see so often with the National Party, and that is a deference to powerful, vested interests. The National Party loves to say it’s the party of small business, but, time and time again, they actually line up and defend the interests of large private corporations, of big business, and that is transparently what is happening here. They don’t want to impose a cost on the largest and most powerful corporations in New Zealand in order to create a more level playing field and a fairer and more competitive environment for our country’s small businesses, and that reveals something about this National Party that is in their DNA.

It always amuses me that the self-styled party of free enterprise is very, very rarely ever willing to use the levers of Government to actually make the economic environment more competitive. Late payments by big companies are anti-competitive. They are taking money out of the till of small businesses: the garages, the barbers, the suburban accountants, the shop owners, and the small entrepreneurs. It is anti-competitive. It makes it harder for small businesses to become medium-sized enterprises.

It is inherently anti-competitive, and yet the party in Government—the National Party—don’t seem to care about that. They don’t. Let’s judge them by their actions, not by their words. They are not willing to use the powers of Government to make a more competitive economy, and it gives the lie to the idea that they are truly the party of free enterprise. If they looked to their ideological inspiration in the true advocates of free-enterprise capitalism in the United States, they would see in the United States a much more full-throated commitment, by even parties of the right, to use law, to use policy, and to use the institutions of Government to drive good competition policy to make markets work for everybody. Instead, what we see is this deference to self-interest.

The choice here is very clear: is this House willing to impose a cost on the largest corporations in New Zealand in order to create a more competitive market and give struggling small-business owners a break? That’s the choice, and my colleague Reuben Davidson was right when he bridled against the suggestion from the other side of the House that small-business owners somehow didn’t have it in them to look up on the web a public database that showed data on whether companies are good payers or not—a name and shame database. Somehow, they are not capable of using a search engine and looking at a public database. That is kind of insulting, and it disrespects the people whom the legislation that’s being repealed today was designed to protect and support.

My colleagues are also right that this is yet another example of this Government using urgency and using the time of this House to repeal legislation without any clear or credible plan to replace it. It is the theatre of the politics of revenge—that’s all it is—and I’m afraid to say that it actually doesn’t do justice to a party that claims to be a Government for all of New Zealand.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t think there’s any argument throughout the whole House, from anything that I’ve heard today, that we don’t want big corporations to pay their bills in a timely fashion. We don’t want small and medium sized enterprises to be banks. In fact, you can’t even call them a bank, because it’s interest-free. Banks charge interest with regard to things like that.

What we do want, though, is legislation that is efficient and is effective in delivering on the purpose that it serves, and we’ve already got evidence being presented by the Minister that across the Tasman Sea, that is not the case. So we need to be outcomes-focused. We are trying to make sure that there is good behaviour by all businesses with the methods with which they’re actually paying.

The Minister has also presented what he plans to do with the seven initiatives, the seven focus areas, subsequent to the repealing of the particular piece of legislation. This is not big businesses versus small to medium sized enterprises; this is about attacking the core issue that we’re talking about. For that reason, I’m happy to commend this bill to the House.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of that bill.

In Committee

Part 1 Repeal of Business Payment Practices Act 2023 and related matters