What you’re saying sounds quite simplistic. Haven’t you been in...

What you’re saying sounds quite simplistic. Haven’t you been in consultation with your Ownership Matters friend?I recall the AFR article whilst stating the Treasurer would not comment on specific applications, the journalist was of the clear impression there was a “rebuff”. There are certain kinds of language that don’t transpose well in journalism; a good journalist would be able to ascertain what side of True/False the AVZ announcement is by simply asking them to verify the facts. Let’s say the Treasurer or his staffperson, rebuff by saying, as he approximately did: “we can not comment...”If AVZ was lying or misleading, would the Treasury allow statements by AVZ that “understand” the Government “belief” of “contrary to National Interest” be allowed to persist in the public domain?1st you would expect punitive actions to be undertaken including the ASX notified of the misleading conduct or ASIC. After all it was a price sensitive announcement.What sets NTU apart from AVZ, was that NTU’s suitor did not avoid a Prohibition Order. That makes it black and white publically.AVZ’s suitor, Yibin Tianyi, did not proceed to seek final approval, thus avoiding the Prohibition Order. In both cases supply chain dominance by Mainland Chinese entities was a point of contention.For AVZ, Yibin wanted a board nominee as indicated by the % requested, not under 9% but over 10%. This is an issue for FIRB and especially since it’s $0 mandate to scrutinize. It’s a war time like policy. And bear in mind it takes time to walk back and forth legislation so, this new policy on FI, was likely already simmering since anytime last year when critical minerals became topical for the ever anxious Western alliance.Mark my words.My brother who knows a few Perth taxi drivers suggested I read up here, where FIRB matters for mining interests is a hot topic:https://www.minterellison.com/articles/firb-pinch-points-for-foreign-investors-in-resources-transactions“Certain FIRB exceptions will not apply if an investor can appoint a board nominee”So it’s likely the exemption certificate was never going to happen even if laws are not drafted, there is as your friend knows the round table development of policy weeks if not months before. So, while it can be speculated Yibin Tianyi may have not had all its paperwork in order and hence its legal advisor, it can also be that policy and legislative changes are afoot. And yes they were. Lithium became under further scrutiny.So for consistency it will be interesting the Australian land Lithium and Chinese investment. Senator Reynolds is reported to have been concerned about a monopoly in rare earths and so supply chain dominance. Lithium in WA is already a ‘sick puppy’, and AVZ...if you count all the Chinese share % in AVZ, it could all slide into CATL or like’s clutches. I think this is why the Ninja had such a hard time to be honest and AVZ management’s biggest test is emerging to succeed where he struggled in the sector downturn. China knows all about fish market haggle. Nothing has value until the cash is shown.Basically, reading FIRB site and this law firms take, I think it’s going to be very difficult for Chinese companies any company not registered in Australia with ASIC, is going to have a hard time acquiring Australian assets in the sense of influencing or controlling them. AVZ is clearly strategic in scale to warrant a ‘decline’ before executing a prohibition order.Why would Yibin test the Treasury and press for approval despite what’s been quoted, “contrary to National Interest”.The asset is in Congo but AVZ is Australian. WA lithium et al likely lobbied for its interests. Not hard to do. And having China knocked back helps their suffering or slows AVZ down as funding outside China is more difficult.Or is it?times are changing