Russell DeborahHon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Oh OK thank you Madam Chair. I want a brief follow-up on a number of issues. The questions I was asking earlier were around the phrase excessive profits" and the Minister gave me the explanation that it's just a pretty standard term used in this sort of field of law this regulatory area. It might be a standard term but it doesn't actually answer the substantive issue as to why we're making profits in this space at all. Explaining that it's a common term is interesting. I get that it's a common phrase but not then the substantive issue there so I do want the Minister to come back to that and explain why these water services entities are making profits at all.I want to raise a further point on the discussion around the levy in clause 40A and we've already had a bit of discussion about this from some of my colleagues. Everyone has to pay a levy and it's determined in a particular way. I'm just looking at clause 40A(2)(d) "providing different levies for different classes of providers of water services". I'm interested in what those different classes of water services might be because my first thought when seeing this discussion around the levy was the concern that some water services entities are much larger than others. Some of them come off a much larger rating base than others. Some of them are going to be in a much better position to pay a levy than others so I'd like some discussion from the Minister as to how we might set up those different classes of water services entities or what's going to be taken into account.I guess as someone who is always in favour of progressive taxation and progressive levies I'm rather hoping that there is a progressive scheme in mind here so that the cost weighs proportionately I guess so we'll look for an answer on that. So those are just follow-ups on some of the questions that some of my colleagues have already asked just elucidating a little bit more information there.The question I am particularly interested in that I wanted to do some untangling on is in clauses 36 and 37. If we go to 36(1)(b) the Commerce Commission has made a determination the water services entity has to provide the specified information and then it says it has to provide a copy of all the information it has to be supplied to the Commission who is going to be making the decisions disclosed in accordance with the determination within five working days after the specified entity first publicly discloses the information. That felt a little curious to me because ordinarily I thought it might have gone the other way around that the information was disclosed to the Commission and then it was made available publicly a few days later so I was thinking "Why on earth are we doing it in this particular order?" If we go to clause 37—I must have left a number out when I was writing this out. Oh no clause 37(1)(c) any determination has to specify the time frames that must be complied with. So that's kind of interesting. It just seems to me a little bit in reverse order there. I would ordinarily expect to see a time frame—that's fine—but then it says it's a time frame for public disclosure of information but the person who's wanting the information is actually the Commission and so it just seems to be a little odd. I would have thought that the way to structure this would have been to say that under clause 37(c) you can set a time frame and that is the time frame to respond to the Commission. Then I would have expected to see in clause 36(1)(b) you've got to supply to the Commission a copy of all the information and then I would expect that you would have to publicly disclose it within five days of having supplied all the information to the Commission.Because it's the other way around from what would be expected there must be a reason for doing it that way. I would hope it's not just a convenience reason but a substantive reason as to why we would want that information to be public before it went to the Commission. There might be some good that is obtained by doing it that way and I would like to hear the Minister explain a little bit as to why it's been framed in that particular way."