Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I'm enjoying this this evening. It's good to hear a little bit of good questioning happening from this side and looking forward to the Minister responding to that.Look I'm just going to get back to a couple of questions that I was referring to before and I appreciate the Minister's answer around my question around clause 32 and the additions of the new subparts. I was and I am somewhat concerned I guess not surprisingly that there was a mistake in the original drafting and subsequently there's had to be an amendment and a fix of that. You know we acknowledge these things happen but we do see that quite regularly.I'm interested in regards to that clause 32 what was the view around that from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and whether they had any concerns? I note in the document around the departmental disclosure document that it said they didn't have any specific concerns. But I am interested around—because of the fact that it was there was an omission or an oversight. I think the language here is an unintended oversight". What sort of review was undertaken there?The other question I've got for the Minister is in regards to clause 28. Clause 28 of the bill would amend section 83 of the Act in regards to increasing the maximum penalty for anti-competitive acquisitions and mergers. So this is a new maximum penalty that's being introduced under clause 28. And what I'm interested from the Minister in terms of providing some context was how did he get comfort that that new maximum penalty amount which is $500000 for individuals was appropriate in order to get the balance between the penalty regime and achieving the intended behaviour and how that confidence was gained? The other aspect is around the calculation that's being provided there for businesses as well when there's a two-part calculation which takes into account multipliers of revenue. Again interested in just a little bit of context around why and how we got to that position.Linked to that and the third question that I've got if I may is in the departmental disclosure statement section one as we'll all be aware refers to offences penalties and court jurisdictions and part 1(a) refers to do the proposed amendments create amend or remove offences or penalties including infringement offences or penalties in civil pecuniary penalties. The answer's no. So I guess what I've just articulated in terms of clause 28 changes to section 83 well they are actually changing the penalties regime. They're introducing a new maximum penalty. Yet in the disclosure statement in bold text at the top the answer is "no" "no". Maybe it's just me but I really want to get context. I guess there's been an omission already in terms of a mistake but is this something that I'm missing or you know I'd appreciate a little bit of information from the Minister so I can be more informed. Thank you.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. I do want to just note in respect of one of the issues raised by Simon Watts the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has made no further comment on inclusion of police in information-sharing provisions.In respect of the contribution of the member Andrew Bayly a rather excited contribution I'm not sure whether he's had a long and energising dinner or quite what's brought him to this point of pique. He's railing against the Commerce Commission and you know I do note that the letter that he quoted from around the repeal of intellectual property exemptions does suggest that the end as a point of resolution the issuing of guidance in Australia by their commerce commission was the very thing that provided comfort. I don't know whether the member is confused or whether he hasn't read the whole letter. This is a point that we have traversed but it's certainly got him energised and I guess that alone is a good thing."