Cameron Mark; Webb DuncanMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Minister for coming along. I'm trying to ascertain the role of the Commerce Commission as you will appreciate in its normal role of adjudicating how markets work in making sure that they are working in a safe and salient manner and are abiding by all the things inside the boundaries of the law—now obviously the role of the Commerce Commission in this capacity of adjudicating the financial wellbeing for consumers of all things to do with the water services entities legislation. What will it look like in terms of the Commerce Commission in its role giving effect to Treaty principles? If you could please answer that. What are those Treaty principles by way of definition if they in fact have been laid out and how will the Commerce Commission speak to those when it comes to the very salient issue of the management the oversight—the financial management and oversight—of infrastructure assets and outcomes?Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I thank the member for his question on Part 1. The issue of how the Treaty principles and Treaty settlements are dealt with was very carefully considered. Obviously the water services entities themselves have the primary obligation and the primary relationship with iwi and it was determined that economic regulation and consumer protection provisions for the water services sector must be responsive to the Treaty and to Te Mana o te Wai. The commission is required to take into account the entities' Treaty-related obligations. So it's a secondary obligation on the commission itself but that supports coherency across the wider water services reforms and of course recognises the Treaty principle that water is a taonga for Māori.So the entities' obligations may warrant higher levels of investment activity. That's a matter for them in consultation with iwi and through their own structures. It must be considered by the economic regulator when regulating the entities including when setting price-quality paths and their other roles as well. It's entirely appropriate for the Commerce Commission to do so. It ensures that the economic regulation of the consumer protection regime is designed in a way that recognises Te Tiriti and the importance of Te Mana o te Wai to these reforms. It is important that it doesn't duplicate the roles across the wider regulatory framework. And I just note that the bill also makes it clear that the commission has to have the capacity the understanding and the knowledge of the relevant tikanga to discharge that role.MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Minister for a very succinct answer and I genuinely mean that. Could I add to the line of inquiry? Have the principles of Te Mana o te Wai been defined—yes or no—as you understand it to be so? And if not and they are still in the process of being clearly defined in the legislation as written how will the Commerce Commission run oversight in terms of outcomes if those principles are not clearly defined? I mean this with the greatest respect: Te Mana o te Wai statements are quite subjective in this capacity when it comes to the fiscal adjudication and functionality of all things to do with water services entities. If those definitions are ill defined or not clearly defined and subject to subjectivity you might say does not that run the risk of the very thing you seek to alleviate? That's duplication.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I'd invite the member to read the Supplementary Order Paper which clarifies that Te Mana o te Wai is the meaning set out in the national planning framework made under section 34 of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023.