Belich Camilla; Watts SimonCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. And yes very good point of order. It's important to note that it's important we all get to have a say in this debate because we don't have a select committee process for this and so some of the things that we might have been able to kind of tease out through select committee we are having to raise with the Minister through the stage of the committee of the whole House. So my contribution is not going to be a long contribution. I have a few technical questions for the Minister in relation to the definitions in Part 1. So the first question I have for the Minister is in Part 1 the definition of children which is relevant to the calculation of the relevant tax credit that people are entitled to and starts in clause 5 of the bill but inserts new section MF 4J as an amendment to the existing legislation. It defines children in the new section MF 4J(3)(c)(ii) the number of children for whom the person is allowed the in-work tax credit:".Now I myself was not a tax lawyer. I understand that sometimes unusual language is used in tax bills. But I think for the elucidation of the committeeHouse it would be helpful to know from the Minister whether he considered a change in relation to the definition of this formula because children is written there twice. So it's a definition of children and then the explanation for the definition also includes the word "children" which is quite unusual. That's not the only place that that's mentioned within this part. That is also separately defined in another part of the bill when that definition is included again in new section MF 4K(3)(c)(ii). So I just wanted to ask the Minister in fact if he could explain in plain English the effect of that definition and if in fact it is possible to use clearer language to look at the effect of that particular definition. Because as a lawyer but not a tax lawyer I admit it might be easy for tax lawyers to understand it's relatively confusing for me. So that was my first question.The second question I have is another definitional related question.Grant McCallum: I thought you were being short.CAMILLA BELICH: Well I've still got half my call to go. The more questions you ask me the longer I'll take. So happy to have contributions from my colleagues on the other side of the House. Any other questions—happy to answer.The next question I did have for the Minister was in relation to new section MF 4J(3)(d)(ii) which is the first instance that I could see in Part 1 when the term "spouse civil union partner or de facto partner" was used. Now there isn't a definition section in this bill. It would have been in Part 1 if there was a definition section I understand—that's the usual way of legal drafting. But that is also used in that part as well—new section MF 4J(5)(b)(ii). It's also used in MF 4K(3)(c)(ii). It's also used in that same section in (d)(i) and (d)(ii) and in fact in that same section but in new subsection (5)(ii) and (5)(iii). So it's not defined in the Act.I wanted to know from the Minister is it the definition that applies to "spouse civil union partner or de facto partner" in the primary Act—the Income Tax Act—or is it the definition used in the Property (Relationships) Act or in fact is there another definition which is applicable to this piece of legislation? The Minister may think that that's a minor thing but obviously when it comes to tax exact entitlements for the people who will get the particular tax cuts are key. Having that fine detail is essential.Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm very happy to provide some context for the definition of child. Children in this context—and it is not a separate definition. It is a definition that's already included within the overarching legislation. But just for the member's interest and general detail it includes those that are 15 years of age or younger; or someone who's 16 or 17 years of age and financially dependant on the caregiver; or 18 years of age financially dependant on the caregiver and still at secondary school or at a tertiary education. They can't be married in a civil union or a de facto relationship. There are also some different sub-definitions around foster care and other considerations. So we're not talking about anything new in regards to children. It is a consistent definition."