Penk Chris; Williams PotoCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. Happy New Year to you and your fellow presiding officers and indeed all members of the House and the countless thousands of New Zealanders no doubt tuning in to hear what will be a second-rate speech about my first look on this the third reading. I'm not particularly familiar with this as a subject matter and at this stage of the legislative process I do feel obliged to point out that I will still be more familiar than Mark Patterson clearly was. I think that after his explanation of his impairment we're only just waiting to hear him say I'm not as think as you drunk I am." In any case moving on to my own speech on the matter I note that in the spirit of a third reading I will traverse as best I can the legislative history: the fact that the bill has come to the House with support across the House through the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. It was subject to a number of recommended changes from that committee at the second reading and those were thrashed out in some detail at that time. Accordingly I just wish to pass reasonably quickly over each of those proposals and mark those off against the changes that were duly made in the committee of the whole House and that indeed have made their way into this the third and final reading of the bill. Before I do so however I might just note some of the general comments and aims that have been made about the bill by its sponsor—in effect the Government via the Hon Dr Megan Woods—essentially of course amending the Crown Minerals Act 1991 "to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting regime". "Effectiveness and efficiency" might sound a bit like a tautology but I suppose we can say the effectiveness is that it works and the efficiency is how well it works. So with that in mind we can assess whether it's done as it is claimed to be doing—and we think on this side of the House pretty well—in addressing duplication gaps errors inconsistencies and so forth. The aim of course is to ensure an appropriate permitting regime for the future and that's a relief I suppose to us all that an inappropriate permitting regime is not being proposed. Kieran McAnulty: This speech is a waste of time. This is just terrible.CHRIS PENK: So then moving forward to the proposed amendments that came out of the select committee there was an offence regarding change of control—"offence" having a technical term and not meaning just that which Kieran McAnulty gives every time he opens his mouth. So it's an offence as defined by the Act. That's in the new section 41AB as it will become which is set out in clause 8. That's talking about the way that the consent will be obtained for change of control and with your indulgence Madam Assistant Speaker I'll take a bit of a closer look at that shortly. But maintaining a bit of a tiptoe through the tulips of the proposed amendments out of select committee I note as well the specific way that late applications for a change of control would be considered. I think it's helpful to think about not only the way that the Act as it will be once amended should be complied with but also the consequences for non-compliance. If nothing else that provides clarity in the event of non-compliance but also I suppose it sharpens the minds of those who might be careless as to their obligations so that they know that the legislators and the regulators and indeed the enforcers of those rules are serious about what it is that they are saying is required. Next we will look at the consent to change of control of permit operator and exactly what that means for the Minister to be taking into account. It's pretty prescriptive but that's in the name of clarity and so we agree on this side of the House that that is a worthwhile thing. Then the final one that I'll note leaving aside a number of minor and technical amendments goes to clarification of the way that geophysical surveys would be authorised where adjacent land is concerned because there is at least some potential for a lack of clarity in that and perhaps a gap that could be exploited if it were not addressed at this stage. So that's talking about activity that would be authorised to occur on adjacent land apart from a geophysical survey. In my remaining time I'll just as promised—or threatened—have a quick look at each of those various amendments that were proposed and that have found their way more or less into the final version of the legislation. First we look at the meaning of "change of control of permit participant or guarantor". So first looking at the definition of "change of control" there are a couple of different ways this can be achieved. One is by a person obtaining power whether directly or indirectly to control the exercise of or to exercise themselves 50 percent or more of voting rights in that corporate body. "Corporate body" is another little tautology there but it is pretty good shorthand for any number of different types of entity that might be holding a permit or indeed guaranteeing its operation. A "specified person" is set out and that's significant because another part of what it might mean to have a change of control is that a person who is exercising voting rights in the corporate body might be involved and act jointly with them—so far so good. So what is the change of control itself? Well that's really where the power that's being referred to—having just been defined and talked about as essentially a majority control—is made and what's needed very clearly in the Act is the prior consent of the Minister. So she or he as the case may be will be required to give consent—or rather not be required to give consent but required to turn her or his mind to the question of consent—and we'll come to the criteria that will be considered at that point. But set out very clearly as I've advertised earlier for the sake of clarity and again no doubt to ensure compliance are the various consequences that might come about if prior consent isn't gained. One would be that the permit could be revoked or second that an offence could be conducted under another existing section of the Act if the person knows or ought reasonably to have known—constructive knowledge in other words—that the change of control would be effected.So there's a bit of technical detail around the way that a proposed change of control might be given. We'll skip past that in the interests of time so that I can talk really before finishing up about the application for a consent of change of control. So that will be made by a person in the way that's set out there in some detail. Various key players would be a "director" and the legislators—the drafters probably; actually more importantly—have in their wisdom relied on the definition of that term under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and a couple of other definitions relate to that one as well. Similarly "stock exchange" is as defined in the Companies Act. So that seems to me a good approach—a sensible approach—whereby we're not reinventing the wheel by stating who these various key players might be. So the Minister naturally enough has the ability to require certain information. It makes sense really if you think about the decision that she or he would be making. Then we look at a number of criteria under new section 41AE—alfa echo—whereby the consents really would be given if financial capability was held such as that obligations under the permit would likely be met whether there would be likely compliance with the work programme set out in the permit and that obligations under the Act and elsewhere would be met as well. So really it is establishing that the permit holder would continue to be an appropriate person or entity to be able to carry out those obligations. Finally then what would be the result of non-compliance? Well I've touched on that earlier and there's more detail at new section 41AF in terms of the way that the permit could be revoked. So I think that's enough from me or perhaps almost too much one might say—an embarrassment of riches—but here we are in the new year and we're all excited I can tell even more so now than we were 9½ minutes ago. So it is that I conclude by saying that on this side of the House we're very happy to be part of supporting what we think's a good bit of legislation to tidy update clarify reduce the duplication and so forth and we look forward to the bill's passage very shortly. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Kia ora. I understand this is a split call. Marja Lubeck you have five minutes."