Mooney Joseph; Webb DuncanJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you Madam Chair for that clarification of the number of entities. I have to say I did think it was 10 but I picked up the regulatory impact statement from the Table which said it was four. Ha ha! So it seems there's some difficulties—and this is prepared by one of the Government agencies obviously so there's some challenges on keeping up with the fast-moving nature of the changes. And maybe we've also got this 102-page Supplementary Order Paper that we'll need to work our way through as well which brings a number of changes. I'm just going to ask a question—Dr Tracey McLellan: Enjoy the reading.JOSEPH MOONEY: Pardon?Dr Tracey McLellan: Enjoy the reading.JOSEPH MOONEY: Enjoy the reading." Oh thank you. Yes it's 102 pages of reading of this new Supplementary Order Paper that we've got here which has got fairly chunky things in it. But one of the points that was raised actually—and also in the departmental disclosure statement it also talks about four entities interestingly but I'll leave that for another day. But one of the issues that it raises is that there's a risk of uncertainty in terms of the economic regulation which the industry hasn't been subject to before which could lead to some water entities acting too cautiously focusing on compliance with little regard to efficiency in an effort to avoid any risk of contravening the provisions of the Act. And I do note when I have a quick flick through this 102-page Supplementary Order Paper that there are some pretty significant penalties in here for individuals—say $500000 or $5 million in some cases. So I can certainly see that there'll be some caution being exercised by those who have decision-making responsibilities in terms of this Act. It may mean they will be focusing on this issue identified here on compliance rather than efficiencies. And I would be interested in the Minister's view on how that balance has been struck and what has been done to try to address that concern that was raised in the departmental disclosure statement.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Just in terms of input methodologies you might want to have a quick look at clause 27 which does give some framework around what kind of things might be in that and I probably should have referred to that earlier. In terms of the point that this might stifle innovation or be inflexible that is something that must be held in mind by the regulator. That's why it's important that this regulatory regime needs to be flexible to allow for different forms of economic regulation. That's why we haven't imposed it. It's still being designed and applied in a staged approach so as to be able to adapt to the changes as they emerge. So that's why this bill contains the flexible level of economic regulation to essentially shift up and down as to what's needed. If the market or the entities operate well very light-handed regulation would be needed. If it's clear that consumers aren't getting a fair deal then perhaps more will be needed.But the bill also allows other water services providers such as community and private water schemes to be designated into this regime as well and to the consumer protection provisions if a Minister deems that necessary—so that's in clauses 139E and 139L. So if a water provider started ripping off its customers and wasn't regulated they could indeed be brought in. That's really just an example of how this is a flexible regime that can be scaled up and down and entities can be brought into it as required to address the concerns that the member no doubt has for his community."