Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Chair. This is my second call in this debate and I intend to take a couple more hopefully. I want to continue on a line of questioning I had previously with the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford and I hope he takes the opportunity at some point to address some of the questions that we're raising this morning.I want to turn to new section 41AA inserted by clause 8 and particularly subsection (1)(a) of that section which refers to a person … obtains the power (whether directly or indirectly) to exercise or control the exercise of 50% or more of the voting rights in the corporate body" and that refers to a change of control. So my first question to the Minister in relation to that is: will he treat a change of control differently if for example someone who is a 49 percent shareholder and is already well established with that entity was to increase their shareholding to for example 51 percent? The ownership of the company doesn't change very much compared to for example an entirely new entity coming in and purchasing that entity outright—so that would obviously be a substantial change in control. So my first question to the Minister is: when he's considering if there's been a change of control and whether or not to grant a new permit to that permit holder will he differentiate between a substantial change in control versus a relatively minor change in control?The second question around that is: will he treat a change of control differently if it is a domestic purchaser versus perhaps an international purchaser? If you look around the oil and gas sector at the moment in particular there is a small number of quite large players in New Zealand but many of them have quite deep and strong international partnerships with other companies around the world to be able to finance their operation.So my question to the Minister is: if there is a change of control will he treat a domestic purchase of that entity differently to an international purchaser of that entity? The question that comes out of that is: if he does treat an international purchase of that entity differently to a domestic one will he consider for example international or things that have occurred offshore perhaps in the environmental space? And unfortunately we have seen a number of—a relatively small number of—catastrophic incidents around the world in relation to things like oil and gas. So if he is considering something with the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill where there is a change of control and there has been some sort of problem overseas with an international entity and they are looking to purchase a domestic entity will he treat them differently if they've had a problem somewhere offshore?While we're on that same page I just want to have another brief question to the Minister which is in relation to new section 41AF(4) set out in clause 8. It says the following applies: "the Minister may by serving a written notice on the permit holder revoke the permit with effect on a date specified in the notice if the Minister is satisfied that … (b) the permit should be revoked." So the Minister has very broad powers under this particular part to be satisfied that a permit should be revoked. And so my question to him on behalf of his colleague Megan Woods is: would it be her intention to enter into some sort of discussion with that entity before he decides to unilaterally shall we say revoke their permit? Will he enter into correspondence of any kind?The final question I have for the Minister before he hopefully takes his first call this morning is in relation to new section 41AC set out in clause 8 "Application for consent for change of control" and specifically new section 41AC(2) which says "If the Minister is satisfied that there are compelling reasons why a … person could not comply with subsection (1)(b) the Minister may receive an application by a later date agreed by the Minister (which date must not be later than the date on which the proposed change of control takes effect)." So my question to the Minister is: what is his definition of "compelling reasons" because I think members on all sides would agree that there's quite a difference between what one person would regard as compelling reasons and what someone else would. Obviously in a lot of laws and regulations we have reference to a "fit and proper person" but of course that definition can be very different from one person to the next. And so my question to the Minister is: what does he consider are compelling reasons why a person could not comply with subsection (1)(b)? I'd be very interested to hear his thoughts and while he perhaps asks his officials those questions I've come up with some more questions for him. Thank you."