Russell Deborah; Kuriger BarbaraHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Just a couple of responses to that contribution from the Minister. It was in fact the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill which had a self-repeal clause on it of one year and so the Minister has said that 28 days is the standard. I appreciate that he doesn't have the tax officials here in the Chamber but I'm hoping that perhaps the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials can prompt us with just a wee explanation as to why one bill merited a year and one bill merited 28 days. But—Hon Andrew Bayly: I've just answered that. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Well but the difference between the periods—they may not have that explanation to hand as to why the Taxation Principles Reporting Act Repeal Bill self-repealed a year later whereas this bill repeals 28 days later. But if they have that would be great to know.The other thing and the Minister brought it up in his speech just now as to why we needed to have this particular bill—keeping those words straight is getting challenging—going through urgency now. I can see the repeal clause with 28 days but then he mentioned the bill going through now so I am going to respond to that as well. He said that the reason that we need to get this through under urgency now is because otherwise MBIE would have to spend $2 million or $3 million or whatever it is in order to put this—Hon Andrew Bayly: And industry.Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yes and industry would have to spend money too in order to get this practice into place. I am somewhat sorry to ask this of this Minister because I know he is diligent but this Government famously has come into Government saying it had a 100-day plan. Now the fact that most of the 100-day plan seems to have consisted of stop repeal replace remove" is neither here nor there—let's see the positive stuff. The Minister has seen this coming for a long time so why leave it till the last minute?Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing): Thank you Madam Chair. I think we're having a constitutional debate here which is not really relevant to the bill but none the less you asked about the 28-day repeal. Where bills or Acts have transitional arrangements that's why you have a longer period of time and that's why the tax—I see the member; she's probably the only one in the House that probably understands it. But that's why the taxation—Hon Matt Doocey: Oh that's outrageous!Hon ANDREW BAYLY: Well I'm sure many of you are very interested in these constitutional aspects but I know—Hon Matt Doocey: I was up all night understanding it.Hon ANDREW BAYLY: I apologise to you—there are some very diligent people. But that's why the taxation one had a longer period of time and this is why we only have 28 days. It's perfectly relevant. I just also want to pick up on Helen White's Amendment Paper on this part of the bill suggesting that it is delayed for 24 months. Look the whole purpose of doing it now under urgency is so that we stop people incurring lots of money. We're conscious about the Government wasting even more money on a scheme that will not bring much benefit to it. That's why we would not agree to the 24 months because that in effect allows the money to be spent. In terms of urgency look there have already been 49 pieces of legislation or there will be by Friday or maybe Saturday—and I'm looking at the chief whip there. But the fact is that this one was deemed because of the urgency around people actually incurring money—that's why we're pushing it through now under urgency. Otherwise we could have had a longer period to do it but we are very conscious about giving clarity. Industry has asked for that clarity and we're delivering that clarity. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK so we haven't moved to the title and commencement debate yet. This is strictly about repeal so if someone's got a question strictly about repeal I'll take it."