Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I want to focus on clause 6. I think the Minister of Finance made some very good points about ownership and what constitutes the entity or what the entity that it's invested in is considered as and whether it's a Crown entity or otherwise. I think it's really important—the Minister had made points earlier about investment much needed investment coming in from overseas. I do understand that and I think it's really important; we do lack depth and breadth of capital in New Zealand to invest into businesses and that does create a problem.But I want to turn to clause 6 of the bill sections 59 to 59B of the principal legislation are being replaced with section 59 Status of certain entities" which the Minister covered. Subsection (2) section 59 states "To avoid doubt the Official Information Act 1982 and the Ombudsman Act 1975 do not apply to any entity by virtue of a Fund investment or any related [arrangements]" and in brackets it says "(but the Official Information Act 1982 applies to the Guardians in respect of information held by the Guardians about the entity)."Now I have some concerns about that Minister. If I was a company that was looking for an investment large capital raised in some way and a New Zealand Superannuation Fund was one of the options if I knew that any information that I had about my company could be accessible via the Official Information Act I'd be reticent. If I've got two offers on the table one from the New Zealand super fund and one say from an overseas investment firm and one of them I know will not be subject to the Official Information Act (OIA) and the other will be I'd be quite concerned. So if that information included commercially sensitive information such as pricing such as suppliers and supplier agreements which would normally be part of a transaction—any investor would want to know some of those things and they'd have a non-disclosure agreement I'd imagine for commercially sensitive information. That wouldn't be worth anything if the New Zealand Super Fund was the potential investor as I read the bill. There may be some other caveats that go with that.We do know from long experience in the Opposition that getting OIA requests—sometimes there's a lot of redaction. Sometimes there's more black ink covering everything than there is in the rest of the request and you can't read anything. But as this bill reads it would seem that everything that that the entity supplied to the super fund could be viewed by Official Information Act request. So my question is: am I understanding this correctly? If I am what would be acceptable as a redaction on the grounds of commercial sensitivity and where does that go for those businesses? Because it could well gazump the whole intent of the bill which is to enable the super fund to bring much needed depth to the capital markets to ensure that New Zealand businesses survive and thrive.The whole point of an investment might be to invest in new technology to increase productivity it might be to invest in ensuring that they can grow their markets. It may well be better to accept an investor or only to cast your net as wide as the international markets where you might get extra benefits other than money coming from offshore like access to markets which the New Zealand super fund would not actually bring to the table. So I'd be very interested in hearing that Minister because I think it's a very important thing for New Zealand and for the super fund as well."