Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the Minister the Hon Nicola Grigg for taking the time just then to answer some questions. I would very much like the Minister to also answer the questions that were asked in the last session—I've got a new point as well—and those related particularly in my contribution to clauses 32 and 33 and the interaction between those two.This isn't a greatly political point that I'm making here; it's simply a drafting one which I'm sure the Minister and the officials will want to answer. It is related to clause 32 Purposes of this subpart". At clause 32(3) it says "This subpart—(a) relates only to"—and it references some other sections which are about the framework and disclosing information and then there's an "and". But then you turn over the page to clause 33 and it's "Application of this subpart". How does the application of the subpart in clause 33 relate to what is presumably what clause 32(3) should be doing? It's just a drafting question—a simple one there—which I think it would be useful to have an answer to. It might be a mistake; it might be able to be rectified.My more substantive questions before we closed up shop the last Thursday I think it was we were sitting—it seems a lifetime ago—were on clause 40A about the levy. The Minister for this bill had been explaining to us in answers that this bill is going to be good for councils; it's going to be bottom-up rather than top-down. I don't understand then why there needs to be a levy at clause 40A. I do note that the Finance and Expenditure Committee in its report did talk about how this is for Commerce Commission work. But it would again be useful to understand how this piece of legislation is helping councils because it very much looks like it is doing exactly the opposite and is putting a whole lot of centralised requirements on to councils whilst the Minister tells us it's doing exactly the opposite. And you can imagine that that is quite frustrating for us members asking questions about this bill.Related to that levy and "Why do you need this levy?"—and it is a new point that the officials won't have heard from me—if we go over a couple of pages the subheading just before clause 42 says "Pecuniary penalty orders". And there is a whole scheme here whereby the High Court can make such an order. And this relates to not disclosing information; so we're talking about these reports and disclosing information. At clause 43 we see the maximum amount of a pecuniary penalty. For an individual it's $500000 but for an organisation it's $5 million. Presumably the organisations would be the councils or the council-controlled organisations that are part of this bill. And $5 million for not providing information seems like a very high amount. I'd like to know why it's so high and if it does just relate to those information disclosures and how that compares to other legislation where there are these penalty clauses for not disclosing information.I understand that there may be circumstances where councils have not disclosed information that's important and that there perhaps should be a penalty although that would make more sense if you were saying that the whole scheme of this legislation is to make councils do things to do with water infrastructure. And the Minister has kept telling us it's not about that; it's bottom-up not top-down. This all seems to me to be very top-down. So again it would be useful to have some answers on that point."