Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Madam Speaker thank you very much. I rise on behalf of the National Party and as the member of Parliament for the North Shore to talk in the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment Bill first reading.National supports this bill through to select committee. As we heard this evening the process for decommissioning of petroleum infrastructure is one that is significantly expensive and one which is absolutely critical and necessary as we have seen through failures in the past. This legislation will play a part in order to ensure that we hopefully avoid that situation and in particular ensure that the burden of the cost to decommission and tidy up once these works are undertaken is borne by the entity which undertook those works and not the people of this country paying for it out of their pockets being the taxpayer.We've heard the concept before from Barbara Kuriger around the concept around personal responsibility. I think it's really important—and this is something that is obviously a core principle of the National Party as well—that this in effect is something that we should expect. From what I understand and from what I've read businesses on the whole across our country also acknowledge that when they do their business in this country they derive economic gain but there also comes with that obligations ensuring that the way they leave our country is in the state in which they received it. So that is good.I guess I do want to reference a couple of aspects around this which I think as it goes through into the select committee phase will be important for that committee to consider. And particularly that is around the nuanced nature of a permit holder that basically assumes a liability for decommissioning but through that process may transfer that permit to another party. But the way in which the legislation is currently drafted the responsibility if the party which receives or purchases that permit fails will go back to the original seller. I think that creates a certain—well it's an element of complexity that I think we're going to need to look into from a practical aspect. I know Russell McVeagh have raised similar concerns in regards to some of that nuance because you can imagine a director of a company—that the original company that sells the permit and then basically the company's wound up potentially under this legislation those original directors may carry the liabilities in terms of their personal liability and also their director liability both criminal and also civil for potentially the failure of the entity that has purchased that payment. Coming from a banking and financial background and having an understanding around the due diligence process required when purchasing organisations and entities I think the emphasis around the due diligence required by the seller—actually in this instance around ensuring that the buying entity does have the financial capability not only to trade across the medium term but also have the financial viability and sustainability to be able to afford to pay the decommissioning costs at what could be a reasonable point in the future. So I think that's some of the element that will be worked through and I've got confidence I'm sure that the select committee will consider that. I think the other aspect as well is just in terms of the actual costs elements as well. So when you sell that permit obviously the person buying it's going to take off the costs that they expect it's going to be to decommission. But again if that company then subsequently collapses then the original buyer may have in effect paid twice or had in effect a bit of a double cost on them. So I look forward to seeing this proceed through the House.