McClay Todd; Clark DavidHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): I thank the Minister in the chair for that that his Government has given an undertaking but this is legislation that specifically sets things out. Now unless the letters of expectation—that he doesn't get to write but other Ministers do—set out the exact same requirements as will be agreed at some time in the future via the External Reporting Board (XRB) then actually there will be a difference. So it's good that the Minister has said he wants to do that but it actually is an exemption. Those businesses those Crown entities that he is speaking of are exempt from a piece of legislation when you have two companies that are identical are the same the only difference in this case is the ownership—and one is owned by the Crown one is not owned by the Crown; it is owned by the private sector. Why has he decided to treat them differently?If his argument is that the Government wants to go further and doesn't want to place those requirements—or that burden perhaps—upon the private sector then that's reasonable but he hasn't said that. He said it will be the same although he doesn't know what the reporting requirements will be yet because they are not yet set. He said that the XRB is consulting but we don't know what they will be and how that will happen. It could be that in the future the Government says in their letters of expectation You must abide by the following:" but actually not by law because if they decide not to the Minister or the Government has to call them and tell them off or would have to sack a board member and that's not necessary. Now I know that the boards are responsible. They act and react to letters of expectation. But there have been many occasions where the letter of expectation—the interpretation between the Government and a board of a Crown-owned entity is different. In the case of this law that's being passed that has support of the House it is very very clear the obligation the intention and the requirement and the XRB will make a decision. So ultimately I'm actually not arguing for more regulation and more red tape; I think there should be less cost. But if it is fair enough for the Minister to say that there is an exemption for Crown entities from this legislation then he should say why not: "Well we're doing it anyway and we can write letters." because he's writing a letter or his Government is as the owner but he is not giving the same ability to the private sector owners; he is requiring something by law. He should treat the private sector and the public sector the same in as far as this legislation is concerned. If he wants to take it further his Government he has the ability to do that through letters of expectation. But ultimately where a company in the private sector is covered by this legislation and they don't meet the requirements they break the law there is a fine; well that's not actually going to happen. If anything—and I've seen how these things work because it is very very political; it's a slap on the hand or a telling off or a "fix it next year"—actually they should be treated the same.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Obviously I mean the member's argument is becoming fairly repetitive so I won't respond to the same points that I have responded to again. But what I will do is I'll just give the wider piece of context which of course is that the Government has a carbon-neutral programme from the 2021-22 financial year. All departments departmental agencies and non - Public Service departments will be required to measure and publicly report on their emissions and offset any emissions necessary to reach carbon neutrality by 2025. On this side of the House we are ambitious for achieving carbon neutrality. So we are setting expectations that are significant on our Public Service departments and those things that report into the Government. So that is the wider piece of context which I think is very important that the member conveniently omits or neglects to mention in his arguments."