Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): I'm very grateful to the member for answering many of the questions that have been asked this afternoon and which do actually matter in terms of the preamble to this Act. It may only be a small technical bill but it does have some—I do just want to say that perhaps the member didn't quite get the extent of the question I asked. We all understand that generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) apply better to the Charities Act and to not-for-profit entities and that the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) apply better to for-profit entities. That's the higher level reason for this bill. But the detail is a little bit underneath that and it is a detail that I had hoped the member would be able to explain given it is the motivation for the bill.What is the difference between GAAP and IFRS such that it creates a difference that the entity is required to prepare two sets of financials? Now we know that the law says they're required to prepare two sets of financials. We know that the overall reason is because of the differences between GAAP and IFRS. What I want to know is what the actual differences are. Is it a difference in the way that revenue is recognised? Is it a difference in the way that donations are recognised? Is it a difference in the way that depreciation is recorded? Is it a difference in the way that members' equity in the organisation is recognised? Is it a difference in the way that say Government grants are recognised? Is it a difference in the way that you have to record something as simple as GST? Is it a difference when it comes to maybe tax treatment of some items? There's a whole series of difference and I really did hope to understand the exact differences between the IFRS treatment of the entity's financial performance and the GAAP treatment of the entity's financial performance. We know they are different but what are the differences?Now as I said in my first five minutes speaking on this bill it is a highly technical difference and perhaps it is one that only accountants might understand. Nevertheless I'd hope that the member who was sponsoring the bill would actually understand the difference given that they were getting up to talk about this and stating it as a motivation for it. Perhaps if it's not possible to be explained it sort makes me wonder as to—I mean despite all the goodwill towards this bill as to whether or not we should be engaging it if even the member who is sponsoring it can't actually explain those technical differences between GAAP and IFRS when it comes down to exactly what is handled in there.Now I do know there are a number of people who have an accountancy background in the House. I'm not the only one though it might seem that way from time to time. But in terms of understanding exactly what goes on the technical detail of a tax bill or an accounting bill or a financial reporting bill or something like that I do think it's important that when a member is sponsoring a bill themselves if it has those implications they really ought to understand that detail right down at that level. Otherwise it does become a problem as to why you're supporting the bill in the first place.Well perhaps the member could explain to us which expert she relied on to come to that opinion herself that this was a bill that needed to be presented to the House. Because perhaps you know I understand the member has real expertise. She after all holds a PhD—I believe it's in chemical engineering or something like that—so obviously a very very smart lady. I certainly wouldn't be able to claim expertise in that area at all. So perhaps it is something that the member herself doesn't explain the absolute technical detail between GAAP and IFRS and the recognition of income and all those sorts of things. But in that case I would assume that she had consulted experts who'd be able to explain to her what the difference was and which motivates this on the bill.So I am looking forward to understanding that. It was a question I raised earlier and I appreciate the member has talked about the top-level reasons for the differences between GAAP and IFRS and what impact it has on this bill. I appreciate that it's a difference between standards that are more appropriate for not-for-profit entities and standards that are more appropriate for for-profit entities. But what exactly is it in the difference between GAAP and IFRS that makes that difference? I appreciate that the member may not have that detail herself but in that case I would appreciate understanding whose advice she relied on to come to that bill. I'm sure it was good advice but perhaps if she could provide that detail because that after all is the justification for this bill.We do all support it across the House—this bill is going to go through—but it would be good if we had that explanation available to us and our understanding of the advice that was given to her available to us so that as members of this House we can be absolutely confident that we are supporting this good bill and that we have good reason to support it. So I invite the member to answer those questions. Thank you.