Use Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Cashflow Council
Australia’s payment-times data: what 27.2 days means
Brief date: 17 August 2026
What the Australian figure says
Australia’s Payment Times Reporting Scheme regulator update for August 2026 gives a snapshot of payment times for small-business invoices: 69.8% were paid within 30 days, and the average payment time was 27.2 days. The update also identifies 96 Fast Small Business Payers, defined in the scheme as businesses paying within 20 days.1
Those are useful figures because they describe payment practice at a scale larger than one supplier’s experience. They also need to be read precisely. The 27.2-day figure is an average, not a maximum. It does not say that an individual invoice will be paid in 27.2 days, or that an owner can safely plan around that number. The 69.8% figure is the share paid within 30 days; it is not the share paid within 15 days. And the count of 96 fast payers does not tell us, on its own, how much of the reported invoice volume those businesses represent.
Most importantly for this brief, the update does not give us a 15-day result. It gives a 30-day threshold, an average, and a count using a 20-day category. These measures can help frame a conversation about payment performance, but they cannot be treated as interchangeable. A buyer may meet a 30-day measure and still take twice as long as the Cashflow Council’s proposed standard.
Why 27.2 days matters—and what it cannot tell us
For a small supplier, the time between delivering work and receiving cleared payment is part of the operating cycle. While an invoice remains unpaid, the owner may still need to meet payroll, rent, tax, supplier bills, or other costs. The Australian average makes the length of that interval visible in a way that an abstract discussion of “prompt payment” does not. A figure close to four weeks is a reminder that ordinary trading can involve a material wait for cash already earned.
But an average can conceal very different experiences. Some invoices may be paid quickly and others much later; the average alone does not show how widely payment times vary. It does not identify the reasons for delay, distinguish disputed from undisputed invoices, or tell an individual supplier whether a customer is likely to pay on a particular date. Nor should it be read as evidence that late payment has been eliminated. The fact that 69.8% were paid within 30 days also means that the reported share paid within that period was not 100%.
These limits do not make the figures unhelpful. They show why payment reporting should be public and why more than one measure matters. An average can indicate overall performance; a threshold can show the share paid by a specified day; a distribution can reveal how many invoices take substantially longer. The 96 businesses recorded as paying within 20 days also show that the scheme recognises a faster-payment category. None of these measures, alone, answers every question a supplier needs to ask.
Different rules, different starting points
Owners operate within different legal systems, and the same number of days can have different meanings in each. Australia’s figures should be a comparison point, not a rule that automatically applies elsewhere.
In the United Kingdom, the Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026. The dossier describes a proposed 60-day maximum payment term, mandatory interest at 8% above the base rate, and adjudication and fine powers for the Small Business Commissioner. Import and export contracts are exempt from the proposed cap.4 For a UK owner, that is a legislative development to follow; introduction of a bill is not the same as its enactment. The proposed 60-day maximum is also a different kind of measure from a 15-day payment standard. A ceiling can constrain the longest agreed term without making 15 days the norm.
In the European Union, the 2023 Late Payment Regulation proposal sought a hard 30-day cap. The European Parliament set out its position in April 2024, but the proposal was blocked in the Council, according to the European Parliament’s legislative timeline. The dossier also records an EU average B2B payment time of about 60.3 days in 2024.5 For an owner in the EU, those facts describe a proposal and a reported
average, not a single new 30-day rule already in force across the bloc. A proposed cap and an observed average answer different questions.
In India, the dossier describes provisions in force since 1 April 2024 for micro and small enterprises. Under the cited rules, payment is due within 45 days where there is a written agreement and within 15 days without one; late payment can affect the buyer’s deduction for that year and attract compound interest at three times the RBI bank rate.6 The details of eligibility and application matter. An owner should not assume that a rule applying to micro and small enterprises applies identically to every business or every transaction.
Across these cases, a reported average, a statutory deadline, a proposed cap, and a voluntary standard are not equivalent. Owners need to know which one they are looking at. International comparisons can help show that payment time is a policy choice as well as a business habit; they cannot replace checking the law and terms that apply to a particular invoice.
What Reseated’s Cashflow reports show
As of 17 August 2026, Reseated had 1,347 members in 49 countries and had received 3,986 reports from 50 countries. The Cashflow Council had 320 members from 49 countries and 1,067 reports from 50 countries. The median amount at stake in Cashflow reports was approximately US$4,475.7
The country counts show that the reports are not confined to one national experience. The largest report totals were Canada, 131; the United States, 130; the United Kingdom, 111; India, 84; Spain, 48; Australia, 48; South Africa, 46; and Italy, 42. These are report counts, not a ranking of national payment performance. They do not establish that one country pays better or worse than another: the counts do not provide a population-adjusted comparison, and the material does not say that the reports form a representative sample of all businesses.
The reported situations were classified as client-pays-late in 872 cases and supplier-terms in 195. The council’s data also records team size: 37% of Cashflow reports came from owners working alone, 42% from businesses with 2–9 team members, 16% from those with 10–49, and 5% from those with 50–249. There were 176 Cashflow reports
in the 30 days before the data cut-off. The median amount at stake and these categories give a practical sense of the issue’s scale in the submitted reports; they should not be mistaken for estimates of the financial impact on all small businesses.
The reported spread matters for two reasons. First, payment pressure is present in accounts from different regions and business sizes, rather than being described only as a single-country issue. Second, a member-reported dataset has limits: it records experiences submitted to Reseated, not a census or an independently sampled survey of invoices. The figures can inform the council’s pattern review and identify questions for a standard. They cannot, by themselves, prove the prevalence of late payment in any country or identify the conduct of a particular buyer.
The Cashflow Council’s position
The Council’s CF-001 proposal is a 15-Day Pay Standard. It asks large buyers to pay small suppliers within 15 days of an undisputed invoice, apply interest automatically when payment is late, and publish payment times. CF-001 passed Reseated’s five-part pattern test on 23 June 2026. As of this brief date, the proposal is a council standard under development, not a rule enacted by governments or a commitment made by every buyer.
The 15-day ask is deliberately more specific than a general promise to pay promptly. It starts the clock at an undisputed invoice, sets a clear timeframe, and pairs the timeframe with a consequence and disclosure. The Australian data gives useful context for that position: it reports payment against a 30-day threshold and identifies a group paying within 20 days, while the Council’s proposal asks for payment within 15 days. The comparison does not prove that 15 days is already common. It makes clear that a 30-day reporting measure and a 15-day standard are not the same ambition.
There are also differences in scope. CF-001 concerns large buyers and small suppliers; the Australian figures are scheme reporting, not a test of CF-001. The Council’s position should therefore be judged on its own stated elements, and any evidence used to assess progress should say what was counted, which invoices were included, and how disputed bills were handled. Public reporting is more useful when a buyer’s results can be interpreted rather than reduced to one headline average.
What owners can do now
Owners can start by making their own invoice timeline legible. Keep a copy of the invoice, the date it was issued and received, the agreed payment terms, the due date, and records of any dispute or query. Where a bill is challenged, record what part is disputed and when the issue is resolved; the Council’s proposed clock is for an undisputed invoice. This helps distinguish a genuine dispute from an invoice that has simply aged without payment.
Before accepting work, check the payment term and identify the event that starts it: for instance, invoice receipt, approval, delivery, or another contractual step. Keep the written terms and any changes. If a buyer gives a payment date, record it. When payment is late, use the agreed contact and escalation route, keep dated correspondence, and check the remedies available in the relevant jurisdiction. The national cases in this brief are not legal advice, and eligibility and contract scope can matter.
For owners in Australia, the 27.2-day average is a benchmark for interpreting reported scheme performance, not a forecast for an individual account. For owners in the UK, the introduced bill is a development to monitor rather than a law to assume is already in force. EU owners should distinguish the blocked proposal from rules currently applicable to their contract. In India, owners should check whether the micro- or small-enterprise provisions cover their business and transaction. In every setting, a clear record of the invoice and terms is more useful than relying on a broad average alone.
Owners can also contribute evidence to collective work without disclosing more than they choose. A useful report states the type of situation, the timing, and the amount at stake, while avoiding unnecessary identifying details. Reseated members are anonymous unless they choose a public seat, and the council describes practices rather than accusing named companies. The purpose is to test whether a recurring problem supports a practical standard—not to turn one owner’s case into a claim about every buyer.
Reading the number honestly
Australia’s 27.2-day average is neither a reason for complacency nor proof that every invoice is paid late. It is a measure with a defined frame: average payment time in the scheme update, alongside the share paid within 30 days and a count of businesses in the 20-day fast-payer category. For owners, the central lesson is to ask what a payment statistic measures before using it to make decisions.
For the Cashflow Council, the figures reinforce the case for standards that are clear enough to compare: a stated payment deadline, automatic interest when it is missed, and published payment times. The Council’s 15-day proposal is a normative position, not a description of present-day performance. Keeping that distinction visible allows owners, buyers, and policymakers to debate the standard on its merits—and to measure progress without confusing an average with a promise.
Footnotes
- Australian Payment Times Reporting Scheme, regulator update, August 2026.
- UN facts on MSMEs: about 90% of businesses, 60–70% of employment, and about 50% of GDP worldwide.
- ILO facts on MSMEs: about 70% of employment worldwide; about 80% operate in the informal economy.
- UK Small Business Commissioner, Late Payments Bill overview; UK government late-payment consultation response.
- European Parliament, Legislative Train, revision of the Late Payment Directive.
- Legal 500, overview of Indian Income-tax Act section 43B(h) and MSMED Act section 15.
- Reseated internal Cashflow data, as of 17 August 2026.
Notes and sources
Sources
This document has no standing until adopted under the Founders Charter. Reseated Councils is not affiliated with the United Nations.