Brisbane, AustraliaUse Readable text for larger type, or zoom in on the pages.
Cashflow Council
Opinion OP.3: A payment date is part of the price
RC/CF/2026/OP.3
20 October 2026
Concurring opinion on CF-001
To the members of the Cashflow Council
Who I am and what happened
1.I am Hannah McKenzie, Rapporteur of the Cashflow Council, writing from Brisbane, Australia. I support CF-001, the proposed 15-Day Pay Standard. I concur because the evidence and the practical case for prompt payment support it. I also want to add a reason that deserves separate attention: a reliable payment date is not just a matter of fairness after work has been done. It is part of the conditions a small business needs to plan the next piece of work, meet its own commitments and remain available to its customers.
2.The problem before us is familiar in form even when its details vary. A small supplier completes work or delivers goods, submits an invoice, and then has to wait for the buyer’s payment process to run its course. If the invoice is disputed, the parties should resolve the genuine issue. But where the invoice is undisputed, a long or uncertain wait transfers the buyer’s financing burden to the supplier. The supplier may have to cover wages, materials, rent, tax or other obligations while the money is still outstanding.
3.The important feature is not only how many days elapse. It is that a small supplier may not know when those days will end. A stated payment term can be extended in practice by slow approval, administrative delay or a succession of changed payment dates. An invoice that is technically due at a known time but routinely paid later is not a dependable basis for planning. That is why I read CF-001 as a proposal to establish a clear expectation, make lateness consequential and make payment practice visible.
4.I am not relying on a story that identifies a particular business or buyer. The Council’s record is the appropriate basis for this opinion. The reported situations concern practices, not accusations against named companies. My own conclusion is that the recurring uncertainty itself is a serious operational cost. A small firm cannot plan reliably around money that is owed but may arrive at an unknown time.
What the evidence shows
5.As of 20 October 2026, Reseated had 1,745 seated members in 49 countries and 5,344 reports filed from 50 countries. The council report totals were Platform 1,961; Cashflow 1,351; Fair Play 687; Trade 520; Resilience 353; Red Tape 300; and Team 172. The Cashflow Council had 421 members in 49 countries and 1,351 reports from 50 countries. Those figures describe a cross-border pattern, not an isolated local complaint.
6.The reported amount at stake in Cashflow cases had a median of approximately US$4,296. A median of that size matters because it shows why the issue cannot be reduced to a dispute over a large corporation’s balance sheet or a very large contract. The amounts reported can be material to a small supplier’s ability to keep operating, while remaining small enough that a large buyer may have little incentive to give each invoice urgent attention.
7.The leading countries by Cashflow reports were Canada 174, United States 167, United Kingdom 137, India 103, South Africa 58, Australia 58, Spain 57 and Italy 52. The Council’s two recorded situations were client-pays-late, 1,095 reports, and supplier-terms, 256 reports. The first category is especially instructive: in most Cashflow reports, the difficulty described is not that the supplier has no payment term at all, but that a client’s payment is late.
8.The distribution of team sizes also matters. Among Cashflow reports, 37% came from businesses with just one person, 42% from teams of 2–9, 16% from teams of 10–49, and 5% from teams of 50–249. The problem reaches beyond sole operators, but its reported burden is concentrated among the smallest teams. A business with few people has limited capacity to spend time chasing an
invoice, absorb a cash gap or move staff away from delivery to resolve an accounts-payable delay.
9.There were 96 Cashflow reports in the last 30 days of the data period. That continuing flow of reports is a reason to treat the issue as active, not historical. It does not, by itself, establish that every late payment has the same cause or that every buyer can use the same process. It does show why a standard should be designed around a common rule and workable exceptions rather than assuming that individual suppliers can negotiate their way out of the problem.
10.The consultation on CF-001 closed on 24 September with 362 comments. Consultation is valuable precisely because a standard must work in varied settings. The evidence available to me supports the core policy choice: set a short, comprehensible expectation for undisputed invoices, ensure that late payment has a consequence, and publish payment performance so that practice can be assessed. The figures do not justify treating every delay as deliberate misconduct. They do justify a rule that does not make the supplier bear the uncertainty by default.
How the law in my country and elsewhere handles it
11.Australia’s Payment Times Reporting Scheme provides a useful point of comparison. The regulator’s August 2026 update reported that 69.8% of small-business invoices were paid within 30 days, with an average payment time of 27.2 days. It also identified 96 Fast Small Business Payers, defined as paying within 20 days.1 These measures show that payment times can be reported and compared, and that faster payment is an identifiable practice. They do not establish that a 30-day average is adequate for every small supplier, or that a voluntary or reporting measure alone makes late payment harmless.
12.The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman reported that payment disputes were approximately 26% of new managed cases in the June 2026 quarter.2 That figure is a reminder that payment problems can require attention beyond the invoice itself. A clear deadline can help distinguish an overdue undisputed invoice from a genuine dispute that requires resolution; it should not be used to prevent a buyer from raising a real issue promptly.
13.In the United Kingdom, the Late Payments Bill was introduced in the House of Lords on 19 May 2026. The bill provides for a 60-day maximum payment term, mandatory interest at 8% above the base rate, and adjudication and fine powers for the Small Business Commissioner. The cap does not apply to import and export contracts.3 The UK government’s late-payment consultation response is also part of the policy record.4 The UK proposal illustrates a legislative approach that combines a maximum term with interest and enforcement. CF-001 is more ambitious on the ordinary payment period: it asks for payment within 15 days of an undisputed invoice.
14.India’s framework combines section 15 of the MSMED Act with section 43B(h) of the Income-tax Act. Since 1 April 2024, micro and small enterprises must be paid within 45 days where there is a written agreement, and within 15 days without one; otherwise, the buyer cannot deduct the amount in that tax year. The framework also provides compound interest at three times the RBI bank rate.5 This is a strong case of linking payment timing to a consequence. It also demonstrates that the consequences and time limits can be tailored through law rather than left solely to the bargaining strength of the parties.
15.At the European Union level, the proposed Late Payment Regulation would impose a hard 30-day cap. The European Parliament set out its position in April 2024, but the proposal was blocked in the Council. The EU average for B2B payment was approximately 60.3 days in 2024.6 That gap between a proposed standard and observed payment time is a warning against assuming that announcing a rule will be enough. Implementation, consequences and transparent reporting are all relevant to whether a standard changes practice.
16.These cases are not identical legal systems and should not be treated as proof that one approach can simply be transplanted. They do, however, establish that payment caps, interest, reporting and enforcement are all within the range of public policy tools already under consideration or in use. The 15-Day Pay Standard is a clear proposal for a shared expectation; its credibility will depend on applying its parts together.
The strongest argument against my view and my answer
17.The strongest argument against a 15-day standard is that a shorter deadline may be difficult for buyers to meet. Invoices may need verification, approvals may be distributed across departments, and some transactions may involve complex delivery or quality questions. A buyer may say that a uniform 15-day period imposes administrative costs, encourages rushed checks or creates pressure to pay an invoice that should first be challenged. Smaller buyers may also face cashflow constraints of their own.
18.That argument should be taken seriously. A standard that ignores genuine disputes or the circumstances of smaller buyers would risk replacing one unfairness with another. But it does not answer the proposal as framed. CF-001 concerns an undisputed invoice. A buyer that identifies a genuine dispute should address it as a dispute, rather than allow an invoice to remain indefinitely in an ordinary payment queue. The standard is not a demand to pay claims that have not been properly established; it is a demand to pay what is owed once the invoice is undisputed.
19.Nor does the existence of administrative work make an uncertain payment date neutral. The present arrangement also has a cost; it places that cost on the supplier, who is often less able to absorb it and less able to influence the buyer’s internal process. A 15-day rule creates an incentive to design that process around prompt review. Where a buyer’s systems are too slow to identify a real dispute or approve a routine invoice, the supplier should not automatically be the party financing that system.
20.My distinct reason for supporting the standard is the value of predictability to the continuity of small businesses. Interest can compensate, at least in part, for time and delay. It cannot restore a missed opportunity to schedule work, purchase materials or meet a commitment when the expected funds did not arrive. A payment date that is clear and generally reliable makes a small supplier more able to plan capacity. That is a public benefit beyond the immediate creditor-debtor relationship: it helps preserve the supply of goods and services on which customers and larger buyers themselves depend.
My position clause by clause
21.First, I support the requirement that large buyers pay small suppliers within 15 days of an undisputed invoice. The rule should be expressed in plain language and its clock should be understandable to both parties. The distinction between an undisputed invoice and a genuine dispute is essential. A clear deadline makes the ordinary case easier to administer while leaving room for prompt, specific resolution of the exceptional case.
22.Second, I support automatic interest when payment is late. The point of automatic interest is not to encourage conflict or make the supplier responsible for collecting a penalty. It is to make lateness carry a predictable consequence without requiring every small supplier to begin a separate negotiation. The Council should retain the principle that the consequence follows from late payment under the standard, rather than depending on whether a supplier has enough time or leverage to demand it.
23.Third, I support publication of payment times. Reporting makes it possible to see whether a stated commitment corresponds to actual practice. It also gives buyers a reason to examine their own processes and gives suppliers a basis for distinguishing reliable payment practice from a promise that is not reflected in performance. Reporting should be sufficiently clear to compare payment practice without exposing individual small suppliers or treating an unverified allegation as a finding of fault.
24.Taken together, these clauses address three different failures. The deadline sets the expectation; automatic interest gives the expectation a consequence; publication makes performance visible. Removing any one would weaken the others. A deadline without consequence can become aspirational. Interest that must be individually pursued can be inaccessible. A publication obligation without a meaningful standard provides information but no common measure of prompt payment.
25.I support adoption of CF-001 as a standard directed to large buyers and small suppliers. The policy must be implemented with careful attention to genuine disputes and transparent measurement, but that is a case for making the standard
workable, not for lowering its ambition. The reported pattern is substantial, geographically broad and current. The proposed rule is understandable and directly addresses the late payment of undisputed invoices.
What I ask
26.I ask members of the Cashflow Council to vote in favour of CF-001. In doing so, I ask you to preserve all three parts of the proposal: payment within 15 days for an undisputed invoice, automatic interest when payment is late, and publication of payment times. They form one practical standard, not three optional gestures.
27.I also ask members to keep the reason for the standard in view when we communicate it. Prompt payment is not merely a courtesy, and late payment is not merely an accounting inconvenience. For a small supplier, reliable timing can determine whether the business can plan and continue to serve its customers. We should make it ordinary for a buyer to pay on time, visible when it does not, and unnecessary for a small supplier to spend scarce time asking to be paid what is already due.
Hannah McKenzieRapporteur, Cashflow CouncilBrisbane, Australia