Xu-Nan Lawrence; Doocey MattDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. And also this is actually a really great opportunity for me to speak on my amendment and also the rationale for my amendment and this is to do with clause 18(2) of Schedule 1AA. There are two parts to this amendment. The first one is around—so it states the instalment interest and all actions of the Corporation". So the first part of my amendment would replace "all actions" with "any action". Now the reason for that is I would be keen to hear from the Minister whether this could have been used to exploit a potential loophole when all actions done by the Corporation in fixing the rate could encompass more than what is the intention of this particular legislation. So to give an example let's say that in the event or in the process for the Corporation to fix the rate of the instalment interest when they are visiting a business to discuss these potential changes and they ran a red light and then they had a ticket etc. would that be considered as an action of the Corporation in fixing the rate—because it says "all actions"? So anything that can be I guess considered or even encompassed in this could be considered legal.So I would really like to hear from the Minister whether those kinds of scenarios have been suggested or teased out on what "all actions" could potentially encompass potentially beyond the scope of what is intended in this legislation. So changing it from "all actions" to "any actions" I understand is not the perfect fix but it also simply limits and narrows it down to a certain degree so that it may not be beyond the scope.The second part of my amendment is the removal of "and declared to be and to have always been lawful". Now the reason I recommend this is in discussing or looking at this both in terms of clause 18(2) as well as clause 18(3) whereas and if the Minister could enlighten us subclause (3) already contains the retrospective nature of this bill which is "to be treated as having been lawfully paid to received by and applied by the Corporation as if it were part of the levy." So when I was looking through this legislation having subclause (2) to include and declare the instalment interest and actions to have always been lawful seems to be redundant—unless again if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying—in terms of when you are reading it in conjunction with subclause (3).So the only thing I could think of in this case is legally these two clauses perform different functions in which case I will also be appreciative if the Minister would identify and highlight the difference of how subclause (2) and subclause (3) could be read separately and have separate meanings. So without that level of clarification my amendments propose to remove "and declared to be and to have always been lawful." And in this particular case the reason I want to remove that is focusing on the word "always". And again without any potential analysis or modelling of the potential impact that this will have in future legal claims or legal challenges as I mentioned in terms of "all actions" as well what broader implications would there have been to say "always"?Now we already know that this particular thing first presented as we saw in the regulatory impact statement that the charging of interest starting in 2004 was not identified until a little while later. Although we are talking about the fact that there is this delay in identifying certain issues I wanted to know whether the Act would also give ACC the interpretative allowance to potentially explore things that happened before 2004 with the fact that it says it's "always" been lawful. So we potentially could be looking at up to 50 years' worth of variations or changes or things that can be legally dubious. So that is one of the reasons why I made the second part of the amendment—it's particularly around the word "always" and not knowing how to read subclause (2) and subclause (3) separately.Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): I think in my first contribution I answered the question to the second part of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan's questioning. In response to the first part of his amendment I can assure him that it is specific drafting that is standard practice for the choice of those words—but to reassure him that we are not introducing anything new here but just validating past and current practice."