Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you sir—just some matters which I don't believe are repetitive but I would like some clarity around. New section 41AE inserted by clause 8 where the Minister may consent to a change of control of permit operator—in there it gives us some criteria by which the Minister needs to be satisfied and here they are here. The Minister may grant that if the Minister is satisfied that—(a) the permit holder given the proposed change in control—(i) has the financial capability to meet its obligations under the permit; and (ii) is likely to comply with and give proper effect to the work programme for the permit; and (iii) is likely to comply with the relevant obligations under this Act or the regulations in respect of reporting and the payment of fees and royalties;". So in essence what the Minister is able to do is cast his or her eye across the capability of the new operator as if it were a new permit application. So it's putting the ruler across them. What I would like in terms of that point—who "is likely to comply with and get a proper effect to the work programme for the permit;"—I'm assuming in this that it is going to be under the work programme particularly if it's offshore but it also applies to onshore operations that the aspect of decommissioning is fully appraised. I understand that under the Petroleum Programme 2013 in section 8.9 on decommissioning and I just want assurance from the Minister in the chair that that aspect—because there are as we know a number of fields that are coming to end of life. And it's important because there's been some wells in New Plymouth around Ngāmotu where hydrocarbons were first discovered in New Zealand. Only in recent years has there had to be—not decommissioning—further testing around the capping of those wells. There's been concern in some of the neighbourhoods.It's quite amazing that on the shore of Ngāmotu Beach back in the 1860s and further 1890s in particular oil seeped up through the sands. So that's why Taranaki is such a rich hydrocarbon basin. But it has been nearly 100 years later that some of these concerns have arisen around some of the wells. And I was there on site with the regional council and Ngāti Te Whiti as they were looking at some of their land where they were proposing to build a marae where there had to be some assurance and some investigation and certainly some investment to find out the answer—whether that well that was there was now safe and secure nearly 100 years later.So what we need to have the assurance of is that when there is a change of ownership there is the capability not just to do business as usual but also if there's going to be a decommissioning of a well whether that's onshore or offshore that that company has thorough capability or if not that they have the financial capability to bring in those experts who can do that work. We certainly want to know that when a field comes to the end of life it is finally closed down and decommissioned to the satisfaction of all environmental concerns and health and safety concerns and there's not going to be issues that come back years later. Certainly as a field comes towards the end of life I know that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the Government and the Minister are engaged with exploration and production companies to discuss and plan that process that often takes many many years.So I am assuming—it would be good if we could have clarification whether in new section 41AE(1)(a)(ii) the Minister can approve a proposed change of control if that company "is likely to comply with and give proper effect to the work programme for the permit;". I think "is likely to comply with" is a bit loose. I think that we would like something a bit firmer than that perhaps "shall comply with". Thank you sir."