Penk Chris; Parker DavidCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Again I must confess to a contribution that will be reasonably narrow in its nature. Again I don't profess to be an expert in the bigger-picture policy matters. I do understand I think reasonably well the different factors being played out. I look forward to the Minister explaining those further and those all around the Chamber interrogating him on those too.My relatively narrow question then is in relation to clause 10 of Part 2 which amends Schedule 4 of the Overseas Investment Act 2005. What's happening there is that there's a replacement of applicant" with "persons referred to in subclause (2A)"; so broadening what it means to be an applicant and have that status. What we see in that provision is that what was previously understood to be the applicant also now includes not only the applicant themselves but also the applicant's associates and also the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person.I understand in general terms of course that we have such things as overseas persons; it's at the heart of the overseas investment regime whether in relation to forestry or otherwise that we distinguish between those who are not overseas or—roughly speaking I suppose—New Zealanders with the right as opposed to the privilege to purchase land and other sensitive assets within New Zealand. That much is understood; it's obviously a key distinction between overseas or not.And then we've got a relevant overseas person—of course a person in the law can be not only a natural person what we regard as a human being walking around but also may be a legal entity. So to the extent that that could be a trust or a company I do wonder—well actually a trust specifically. With the language there in clause (2A) and then in (c) "the individuals with control of the relevant overseas person."—I wonder if the Minister could confirm that it might be possible for individuals or natural persons to have control of a trust and therefore be its legal owners but actually the beneficial ownership is the relevant test really in terms of the overseas investment regime.So my question to the Minister and I think I might know the answer but I think it would nevertheless be useful for the Hansard to record his answer—his views are more persuasive than mine as the member and indeed the Minister putting it forward and therefore whose intentions are going to need to be understood by courts and applicants and so on. Is it intended that those individuals that have control of a relevant overseas person if that person is a trust if we're talking about beneficial ownership as well as legal ownership—because of course what we don't want to have is a scenario where New Zealand - based individuals; perhaps lawyers accountants or other such persons; I'll choose my words carefully as a former lawyer myself. If such persons might have control of a relevant overseas person or trust on behalf of those who are to all intents and purposes overseas persons.I know I've said "persons" a lot. I'm going to stop saying "persons". I'm going to stop saying words altogether actually. I'm going to resume my seat and hope that the Minister can provide some light on that subject.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): This clause was added at the recommendation of the Finance and Expenditure Committee to clarify that when considering an application for a forestry standing consent the regulator can consider the compliance record of the wider group of relevant entities and individuals associated with the applicant. I would have thought it would include for example the directors of a company if it was a trust that was purchasing it. I'm not sure as to whether that would be caught but I can get that information from officials if the member desires."