Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you to the Minister for providing responses to my questions.I think it's interesting that the Minister says that this is providing certainty to the industry. Arena Williams: It's the opposite.TANGI UTIKERE: Actually it's the opposite I would suggest because what currently in terms of certainty exists are that the targets are set down in the legislation through to—well for the purposes of this and regulations don't kick in until post 2027. So I'm interested in the Minister's response there because I would have thought that actually what was more certain was at the moment anyone including importers could go and have a look and they could see exactly what it is that the targets are for this year. Currently that's done; for next year the year that follows then the year that follows and then regulations would be kicked in.So it seems counterintuitive to suggest that this act of bringing back regulation-making powers much sooner which is what this clause does where the Minister in exercising those regulation making-powers would only consult with the industry no one else—how is that providing certainty when it's still unknown what those targets might be? [Interruption]Arena Williams: No she's keen on my amendment.TANGI UTIKERE: Well that's good to hear. So I'm a bit perplexed around that because the certainty to me would be much clearer as it's specified as it is in legislation. You can look up the date for the next three years and you can see exactly what the target limits are. This clause seeks to basically rule a line through those and basically say well it's over to the Minister and provided that he consults with the industry his approach seems to be unfettered in that regard.I do have a couple of Amendment Papers in my name here—they're Amendment Papers 42 and 44—so I'd be obliged if the Minister was able to provide a response. I think it might be that there's not one of supporting those amendments in relation to clause 6 but you never know. You never know Minister. So Amendment Paper 42 seeks to replace 2024" with "2028" in clause 6. I don't think we need to be a rocket scientist to basically work out that what that would mean is the regulations would kick in as they would be post 2027. So I'd be interested in the Minister's thoughts even if it was a fleeting opportunity around that. The other is in Amendment Paper 44 which seeks to basically delete clause 6 in its entirety lines 10 through to through to 12.I am disappointed to hear—well I am encouraged to hear that the Minister has referenced that the Government takes the views of this Officer of Parliament who has made his views known seriously. It is disappointing though that it seems in dismissing the Hon Simon Upton's suggestions to try and make this a little bit more workable is going to perhaps be the outcome or the position that the Government have subscribed themselves to.Minister I do have a question that relates to the implications around the date change. So New Zealand has obligations as they stand currently to meet targets and the expectations of the emissions reductions plan 2 and 3. Has there been specific advice around the rolling back of the date and therefore the specified targets in legislation—what implication if any that would have in terms of our approach to the emissions reduction plan? I think that is important because that's an overarching consideration and this clause specifically enables regulations to meddle with that. So I'd be interested to hear whether there has been any advice that's either been sought or provided around that and if so it might be that yes the advice has been received and sought but we still believe that the roll-back date is still in order. But I'll leave my questions."