Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Just before that I would like to still get a clarification from the Minister in the chair the Hon Nicola Grigg regarding the question I asked. And just also on the topic of when we're looking at the cause of some of these areas there's one tiny thing I would like to ask the Minister which is clause 39(2) which is that when you're looking at copies to the public it mentions that a specified entity can have charges for these copies but they can only be used for the recovery of those copies. A very short question can I just check with the Minister if that applies to e-copies which may not come at any additional cost to the specified entity?However I know that I'm going to jump a little bit—I do have questions for earlier clauses but then there is this one particular section that I think is incredibly concerning that I would like to address right now and that is sort of the dichotomy that's being created between clauses 42 and 45. Clauses 42 and 45 talk about what happens when a person in this case does not comply with the obligation to disclose information. The concern I have here is that subclause 42(1)(a) talks about it in the context of the person both knowingly and actively contravening an obligation to disclose information. Now under criminal law we see that fulfils a requirement of both mens rea and actus reus—both the mental component and the physical component. However in subclause42(2) it talks of a person being considered involved in a contravention—i.e. what is considered in 42(1)(e)—if the person per subclause 42(2)(a) has aided abetted counselled or procured".Now the language that they use here is akin to or is parallel to section 66 of the Crimes Act which is around party liability. This however is incredibly concerning because this doesn't necessarily have the same level of mens rea that is required. But the issue we have here is the penalty amount—for everything that is considered under subclauses 42(1) and (2)—can hold a maximum penalty of $500000 in the terms of individuals or $5 million in any other cases per clause 43(1). However if we see the offence under clause 45(1)(a) where a person commits an offence—not necessarily a pecuniary penalty—if "the person knowing that water services are subject to an obligation to disclose information" and "intentionally contravenes"—again we're looking at both the physical and the mental components the actus reus and the mens rea. However in clause 45 when a person knowingly and actively decides not to disclose the fine is only $200000 for an individual or $1 million in any other case. Which means that under clause 45 an individual who then decided not to disclose the information would get a lower penalty than someone who may have just aided or abetted someone under clause 42(2) which has a chance of getting a much higher penalty.So I would like some clarification from the Minister regarding why these particular sections were laid out like this and under what circumstances would one trigger clause 42(2)(a) and clause 45(1)(a) and is there a rationale why a person who may be a party liable may potentially get a much higher penalty than someone who actively both mentally and physically decided not to provide the information? Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Dr Deborah Russell.Hon Nicola Grigg: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh I'm sorry. I'm sorry but I had given the call to Deborah Russell."