Belich Camilla; Doocey MattCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I have been very enthusiastically seeking the call on the first clause of this bill for the reason that I do have some questions around the regulatory impact statement (RIS) and I believe clause 1 is the appropriate time given that we're able to discuss in this clause the bill's wider policy context.My questions for the Minister really are around this question of legal advice. Essentially as I can see it this bill has arisen due to legal advice that's been received. Now that we're in urgency we are being asked to essentially agree to validate retrospectively which is against the usual rules that we use to pass laws in this place. The Minister is shaking his head but I believe that is correct: to essentially validate this.The question I have for the Minister is: on page 7 of the RIS there is a part which has been redacted due to legal professional privilege. Now the Minister owns that privilege as the client of this legal advice and I want to know given that we're in urgency and given that we are being asked to support this bill—and the Labour Party has been quite upfront with the fact that we do support the intent of this bill and from my perspective the main reason I think we should support it is because the provision that ACC is giving people saves them money compared to their options with private providers and credit cards and that kind of thing. Hon Chris Bishop: The Government doesn't waive privilege. The member knows that.CAMILLA BELICH: Yes—well I understand that Ministers are able to contribute to the debate and the Minister on the other side has raised a question and he said that the Minister can't waive legal professional privilege. I want to challenge that—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well the member hasn't asked her question yet so we're not sure what— CAMILLA BELICH: Will he waive the legal professional privilege so we can see the actual fulsome advice that we asked for this being passed under urgency so we can know that we are making the right decision in supporting this bill? That is my question.The second part to why I think that's important is that in paragraph 41 in the RIS there is a statement an assertion that this is an analogous situation to when something is corrected by law and it should be able to be done retrospectively when there is a technical error. Now I want to challenge the Minister to show where there is a technical error. I would not myself characterise this as a technical error. I would characterise it as a situation where there should have been legal authority from the beginning and there wasn't. Is that a technical error? From my view I would like the Minister to elucidate the committee as to why that is a technical error because I think this is really important and it's important that we take the advice on this RIS seriously. Many members of this committee have thanked the officials. I think they have done a really good job in putting this together but I would like to see the full advice. A final question I would have is: we're in urgency this issue had first been raised in 2021—I appreciate the Minister wasn't the Minister at that time; it's being going on since 2004—so why now under urgency are we being asked to do this? Does the legal advice which has been redacted on page 7 hold the answer to why this particular action on this particular day is necessary?Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for ACC): Oh thank you Madam Chair. That was an interesting question about the title. But as the member will know as a Minister I received a range of advice.Camilla Belich: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know what the point of order is going to be and the previous presiding officer made it clear that as it's clause by clause it's a bit broader. I'm watching the other clauses because there will be less debate on those other clauses because as was just said before this is really around validating past practice. The Minister's already made it clear that he's not going to change some things in some of the answers that he's already given. So the point of order is accepted that we're broader than just the title.Camilla Belich: Thank you Madam Chair. I just wonder if the Minister could acknowledge that because we are trying to keep the rules of this debate; there is a justification for us having a wider debate on it in clause 1 and it would be helpful if our contributions weren't undermined by lack of reference to that point of order. Thank you Madam Chair.Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well in response to that Madam Chair if the member potentially was here to hear my opening comments when I acknowledged how it would be wider than that—DEPUTY SPEAKER: You shouldn't refer to the absence of a member Mr Doocey. Hon MATT DOOCEY: In response to that question I received much advice. I considered that to the extent that there was uncertainty it was important to put it beyond reasonable doubt and levy payers are entitled to certainty of their obligations. Due to the uncertainty ACC and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment both agreed legislative change was required.