Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm quite interested in this bill because of course it affects amenities in my own area up in Auckland; so that matters. But what I actually want to hear from the member in the chair today—actually just a point of clarification: how actually do I refer to the member who is in charge of a bill? Is that the—anyway from Dr Parmar I'd like to hear some of the detail of this bill. And in particular Dr Parmar has said this is quite a technical bill and I would like some technical explanations from her partly because actually I need to understand the difference myself but also I think that people at home need to understand what the technical differences are and they need to be confident that the member who has sponsored the bill actually understands what the technical details are otherwise. And I'm sure Dr Parmar will be able to do that. So the area in which—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry I'm just going to interrupt the member. We're debating the preamble—the overview of the bill. The technical parts of it will actually be debated later on clause by clause. The member can actually ask those technical questions at that stage. So we're looking at an overview—what the bill is all about and what it does. So I will hand back to the member to carry on.Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Thank you Mr Chair. I am getting to the technical questions I need to understand that are in the preamble and that is the difference between generally accepted accounting practice—you'll see that's referred to in recital 4 of the preamble and also in recital 7 of the preamble and in recital 8 of the preamble and in recital 9 of the preamble and in recital 10 of the preamble. Oh did I miss recital 5? And in recital 5 of the preamble as well. So I'd like to understand the difference between GAAP—generally accepted accounting practice—and the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards. They're integral to this bill and they're specifically covered in the preamble as the justification—as the justification—for this bill. So I think it really is important for the member in the chair to be able to understand and explain to us the difference between those standards.It does seem odd that there are two sets of standards around for accounting. And of course one set of these standards applies to as we're told in the early parts not-for-profit entities and the other set of standards there—the International Financial Reporting Standards or IFRS—applies to for-profit standards. And that's a clear difference between the two. But it's the detail in there that makes the difference. Why does it mean that there is such a difference between these two sets of accounting standards that there needs to be two sets of financial statements prepared? Now it's all sitting in that preamble in terms of the justification for it. And of course as an accountant myself by training I do understand generally accepted accounting practice and I do understand that there is a set of international financial reporting standards but what is the difference between the two that makes it necessary to prepare two different sets of financial statements? What exactly is the detail that is required? How do the standards apply differently? Why is generally accepted accounting practice so different from the IFRS ones? And even if it is the New Zealand IFRS statements what is the difference there?Now as I said this particular bill has been sponsored by the member and I do trust that the member actually does understand those differences there but at the moment it just exists as an assertion that because one was for profit and one was not for profit it makes a difference to the way that the entities have to prepare their financial difference. And more to the point it makes a substantive financial difference. So it really is important to understand why it makes a difference—not just that it makes a difference but why it makes a difference. Is it in the way that revenue is recognised? Is it in the way that assets are depreciated? Is it in the way that expenses are recognised? Is it in the way that say the members have ownership of the capital in the organisation? So what kinds of things actually make a difference between IFRS and GAAP that actually applies with respect to these Auckland regional amenities that are covered by this particular bill?So as I said it is a very very technical question but it is a technical question that specifically relates to the justification for this bill and it's one that falls straightforwardly out of the preamble to the bill. So we support the bill and we understand that it's necessary. We can see the reason for reducing compliance costs for these entities but what exactly are we trying to achieve here? Why is it that these accounting standards which are pretty good but nevertheless got us into this sort of tangle need to be fixed by legislation? So I look forward to the member explaining that to us.