Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Well that sounds like the old Labour Party wanting to see a good and robust oil and gas industry.I'm very pleased to stand and speak in support of this bill. Recommendations of these amendments came through the previous Cabinet and obviously are supported by the current Government. I notice that in the debate notes that were supplied to members who speak on this bill from the Parliamentary Library service that they say There will only be minor localised impact on businesses." It sounds like the same advice that they received when it came to no more offshore exploration. Oh! That's right; they didn't receive any advice.I'd like to just address and I think in a practical sense because I do support many of the statements that the previous speaker said regarding a robust regime—Hon Chris Hipkins: Which ones don't you support?JONATHAN YOUNG: Not all. Obviously he's been well prepped. The issue is that when one company through share purchase is able to purchase another company particularly around a petroleum asset the concern that the Government any Government of the day has is that the new purchaser must have the financial wherewithal and ability to be able to follow through with the decommissioning of that asset. When fields come to end of life as Mr Hipkins has said often what can happen is that a company that has developed and extracted from that field often a large international company with very high overheads will sell that asset to as the previous speaker said a more nimble company that has specialist skills in order to be able to extend the life of that field. Often the owner of the field will sell that asset and that field and avoid considerable decommissioning costs in the long run. A field that is decommissioned especially an offshore field will often be in the realm of $100 million. So we are very concerned this side of the House and obviously that side of the House that companies that pick up those fields because they have those skills to bring extended life and extended resource from those fields have the capability when that field is finally exhausted to do a thorough and proper decommissioning.So this is why this bill is saying that if there is the lack of consultation or the lack of information given to the Minister there is a penalty regime that will act as a deterrent. The maximum penalty for not notifying a change of control of a tier 1 permit operator is $200000. If that new purchaser new owner absolutely obtains control of a tier 1 permit without ministerial consent the maximum penalty is $800000. So those are quite significant deterrents for not fulfilling those requirements.Then as the bill states the Minister must not just be notified but the Minister must also give prior consent. So what will happen of course is that New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals in this particular case will go through and do a thorough assessment to understand and validate the capability of the purchasing company to be able to fulfil those requirements and obligations. Otherwise those costs will fall on the taxpayer. Let me tell you that the people I talk to in the industry never want that to happen. They have a fine reputation to maintain and a fine commitment to our environment and to serve the people of New Zealand. So I'm very happy to support this bill to the select committee. Thank you to the select committee and thank you to the former speaker that he is sending it to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. We do hope that we won't have any sudden Supplementary Order Papers land in the committee stage as well. Thank you."