Penk Chris; Pugh MaureenHon CHRIS PENK (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much Madam Chair. The member expresses a hope that some good may be obtained. I hope not to disappoint her. Covering a number of different questions that have been raised by various members around the Chamber in the committee I start with I think the same member's question around the levy and observe that different classes of providers could include distinguishing between providers by population size but that is detail that yet could be provided in the regulation. So in that sense of course the purpose of passing this primary legislation isn't the last word so I think that's commendable that she raised it. That's an important detail that needs to be worked through in a secondary legislation kind of way.As to the Hon David Parker's question around what might be described as mixing up the role of regulators the Resource Management Act will continue to set regulatory standards for waste-water discharges whereas the economic regulator will consider the quality standards that councils must adhere to when looking at revenue sufficiency and investment choices. So giving them those mechanisms to be able to provide appropriate settings from an economic point of view. And of course there's a link between the environment and the economy when we're talking about water usage to the extent that of course we want to minimise water wastage so leaks can be found most efficiently. And one efficient mechanism for that is by having people charged for the use of water and thus incentivised to notice when there are shortfalls in the pipeline infrastructure and so on.As to questions around pecuniary penalties and offences I'm advised and I'm sure rightly that this approach is consistent with that taken in the Commerce Act.And as for the questions around levy making a subject dear to the heart of everyone who is currently in or has previously been a member of the Regulations Review Committee what's in the bill—Ryan Hamilton: Great committee.Hon CHRIS PENK: It is a great committee. Thank you Mr Hamilton of Hamilton. I sound like I've got a stutter don't I? I just had to give you that shout-out. So what's in the bill is a standard approach to regulations that relate to levy making. They would be developed of course through standard Order in Council process and the details of those would need to be developed and set out as part of that process and be of course consistent with the general rules around levy making such that they for want of a better phrase need to relate to the work that's been undertaken for the benefit of those levied in that particular way on a narrow set of guidelines and not by way of a general revenue raising or slush fund.The member Rachel Brooking—Hon Rachel Brooking excuse me—asks I think prior to my time in this particular position but I understand a question around the subject of how the piece of legislation is helping councils. I would simply point out relying on the handwriting of someone who's got much better handwriting than me happily economic regulation is critical to supporting councils to become more efficient and invest in their infrastructure. This will include information disclosure and I heard some comments on that in my time in the Chamber as part of this committee helping councils to be more transparent about how much revenue is required to cover costs and investment choices. And of course in the context of paying for water infrastructure that is obviously needed ratepayers need to understand that that is important work that should be undertaken by their council. They will have the ability to fund that in a transparent way rather than having those costs buried in a more general rating burden. And of course the effect of not highlighting the costs associated with providing water infrastructure I think historically has been that many local councils and territorial authorities have probably avoided making such investments because they're perhaps not as interesting politically as other types of infrastructure on which a ribbon can be cut and so forth. So that's my very comprehensive answer to that question.As for pecuniary penalties again this is consistent with the approach taken in the Commerce Act.As for that difference between clauses 32 and 33 are separated into the purpose of the subpart and who it applies to—clause 32 being the purpose and clause 33 to whom it applies.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I before I take the next call just say we are starting to see a bit of repetition so I'm just looking for new material.