Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister for Climate Change): Well I would have thought that as the National Party's primary industries spokesperson he would have those numbers actually. So you have to remember that the bill is cross-sectoral. The emissions trading scheme covers all sectors right? It's not designed to deal with one sector over another; although there are pieces of legislation that deal with that. So I don't have the red meat revenue per hectare but maybe I can give you some proxies for some of that.So as I said before I didn't actually have with me the breakdown of the locations or the sub-sectors within the red meat sector because frankly they're not terribly relevant to the bill. But if you want to talk about the increased cost which is the point that the National Party is making over and over again my point that I was making was that we understand that this could have an effect on household prices if nothing changes and no one changes their behaviour and that is one of the reasons why we've done that modelling. And like I said for a middle-income household it comes out at about $3.40 a week assuming no change. But getting rid of the emissions trading scheme or gutting the emissions trading scheme or allowing it to remain busted isn't the solution to that problem right? The solution to that problem is to make sure that people have adequate incomes which is something that we are doing as a Government.Let me give you a sense of—again assuming no change—what the effect of this bill would be in the rural sector. It would introduce—could introduce depending on what happens in reality—an additional cost of 1c per kilo on milk solids in the year 2025—Hon Member: I'm listening to you.Hon JAMES SHAW: Well I mean it was his question; so I want to make sure he's making notes; so I want to make sure he gets all the details. It would introduce a cost of 1c per kilo on milk solids in the year 2025 right compared with say changes in Fonterra payouts of between 40c and 60c per year on average since 2017. So again it's really at the margins and what Fonterra decides to do makes many orders of magnitude more difference than what this does.But to draw the analogy to the previous conversation we wouldn't try and deal with changes in the Fonterra payout via the emissions trading scheme; it's a separate thing and it itself has impacts and we try to manage those impacts through a variety of Government policies. In terms of lamb you're talking about 3c per kilo in lamb in 2025 and if you compare that to the fluctuations in the farm-gate returns for lamb of about 100c per kilo over the course of the 2018-19 season alone you're talking about a 1 percent variance versus the kind of business as usual variances. So the costs really are absolutely minimal.The other thing that I wanted to say is that there are drystock farmers who will directly benefit from the changes that we're introducing here because one of the issues that the emissions trading scheme has is that it is frankly mind-bogglingly complicated and for someone who wants to be a forestry participant in it it's tended to favour large complex businesses that are able to navigate the complex system that's been created. One of the things that we wanted to do was to simplify it so that a farmer who's got plenty to deal with on their plate but does have a small patch of their land that they wouldn't mind getting more value out of is able to participate much more easily. So what that means is that there will be farmers who will be able to get more revenue per hectare for some parts of their farms than they currently can.So one of my concerns is that if we were to defer this—particularly at this moment in time—what that would mean is that we would be limiting the ability of those farmers to earn additional revenue that they currently can't easily access and I think that's pretty significant.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the Hon David Bennett could I ask him to do two things? First of all don't bring me into the debate; it's the sort of Mark Mitchell syndrome that's spread across to you. So if you could try—I know it's quite hard when you're having a conversation too but if you could try. But also for the last three or four speakers we have had a lot of repetition on a very narrow point. It's a big bill and there's lots to talk about so if you could expand the conversation?