Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I want to have a discussion around clause 204 a clause that we haven't discussed to date in regards to the consumer engagement stocktake. I want to link back to a point that I raised earlier in regards to the Office of the Auditor-General. You'll remember back in terms of quite a scathing report that the Office of the Auditor-General provided on the initial version of the bill in regards to concerns. The point that the Office of the Auditor-General raised in regards to clause 204 around consumer engagement stocktake is as follows and I quote: The bill does not currently clearly link the findings from the consumer engagement stocktake"—which is the clause we're referring to—"with corresponding reporting requirements such as the statement of intent. There are also some limitations in the accessibility of the mechanisms proposed for public reporting."The question that I have for the Minister is in regards to the issues raised by the Office of the Auditor-General—and I think rightfully so—around the linkage of clause 204 in terms of that engagement stocktake with the other provisions of the bill noting that some of the other provisions don't sit within the part which we're discussing but I thought this would be the appropriate time to raise it.Does the Minister have confidence that the way in which the clause is now drafted in the bill deals with the issues that were raised by the Office of the Auditor-General in regards to that? That's because while the Minister in the chair the Hon Kieran McAnulty may not be aware the Finance and Expenditure Committee did not have a process to get subsequent feedback in detail over and above the initial letter of concern that was raised by the Office of the Auditor-General on the bill. We simply got assurance from officials that that correspondence and dialogue had occurred but we didn't have that confirmation from the Minister and that is the certainty that I'm seeking in that regard.The other point that I just want to raise and it's a point that was raised by Minister Mahuta previously in the chair was in regards to a comment around the timing of the five-year review process that we referred to there in clauses that were just raised by the friend and colleague Andrew Bayly in regards to the review period. But she noted an interesting comment which was that the economic regulation is not going to come into force until 2027. That's quite interesting in the context that while that bill is not a bill that's currently on the Table or is a bill that I've had any oversight of—I'm sure members on the other side in Government will. But the Minister did make their comment in the conversation and the dialogue so it does bring it within scope in terms of the conversation here.So I'm seeking confirmation around the fact that actually is that the intent? Because that opens up quite an interesting perspective. Why would the economic regulation portion which will follow in a subsequent bill come in at a period so late in the piece three years beyond where we would expect? What is the rationale when you link that back to this bill here? So two questions: one around the Officer of the Auditor-General around clause 204 and the second one is some clarification around the Minister's comments around when the economic regulation aspect will come into force. Thanks Minister."