Uffindell Sam; Bayly AndrewSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. Very specifically in Part 1 I just want to acknowledge the excellent contribution of my colleague Andrew Bayly who has come roaring in—always appreciated—and also Chris Penk who is about to leave the Chamber and asked many probing questions. I will continue with that and put a question to the Minister around the definition of overseas company" in Part 1. I note that they've been doing some tracked changes on this document and have crossed through after "overseas company" the words "has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the Financial Reporting Act 2013". I'm curious as to why that was crossed out and replaced with "means a body corporate carrying on business in New Zealand that is incorporated outside New Zealand" and also curious in the definitions as to why we have decided to define the word "large"—generally quite a straightforward word to understand. I do see it over here in clause 9 and I'm assuming it's related to companies that have in excess was it $33 million from memory. Interestingly though in clause 9 the $33 million has not been included in the definition I'm curious as to whether it would be appropriate if that was included in there. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just giving the Minister a little bit of time to hopefully respond to both my question and my good colleague's question just then. This definition of "carrying on a business" that Mr Uffindell talks about—it'd be useful if the Minister could just perhaps elucidate what that means because at a committee level we were concerned that we didn't inadvertently capture businesses that wouldn't normally be regarded as being trading entities in New Zealand. So perhaps the Minister can just help the committee in terms of defining what that means and what her understanding of that term "carrying on business in New Zealand" and whether that applies to a trading enterprise or non-trading enterprise offshore subsidiary a branch etc. It'd be very helpful if she could help us with that.SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I wasn't expecting to get that call but there we go. We just wanted to test a little bit further. We note that there are infringement fees associated with that and we know that there's been a lot of talk about infringement bills—it's easy to infringe and poor businesses are taking more hits more infringements—but I'm curious there as to better understand what an infringement fee means. It hasn't been that deeply specified; hasn't been defined very clearly. If I read from Part 1 "infringement fee in relation to an infringement offence means the infringement fee for the offence specified in the regulations." So I'm assuming there Minister that to get the infringement fee you would then have to go from that to the regulation and look up what the specific fee is—Chlöe Swarbrick: That's what it says.SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you for that excellent point there Ms Swarbrick. I appreciate that—I was coming to a come-to-Jesus moment myself there but I just wanted the Minister to clarify it. It could have also been useful—I'm wondering if the Minister's staff behind there ever considered a schedule which would have made it quite easy to have in there. I'm not sure how many infringement notices there are but for future reference that could be quite handy and then you could have it all in the one space. And I'm wondering too whether that is something that the Minister or the ministry had thought about or might even consider. It's something you could note down there Minister something to be included in the final piece of legislation. Thank you."