Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to start by saying to the Minister that his officials were outstanding at committee. As Mr Simpson mentioned this was a hefty bill it was full of detail; frankly it was really difficult to get our heads around those 400 pages and the officials that were provided were outstanding and they put up with some—well certainly from my point—questions that they may have found a bit trying. But to get our heads around this we had to ask them.The Minister in his speech and many other contributions yesterday talked about the need for certainty and how this bill was going to bring about certainty. I want to ask some questions around trade-exposed industries and the automatic phase-down of allocations. We heard from submitters in select committee and it certainly wasn't their view that this bill was bringing certainty. I can't imagine a world in which until 2050 we're going to not need steel and aluminium and concrete and glass—those things are going to be required and National always made a provision to allocate trading units to trade-exposed industries like steel and cement and aluminium so as not to force the closure of those industries and risk thousands of jobs and potentially carbon leakage overseas. Our policy was not to phase out this assistance until other countries—in our region at least—had introduced a carbon cost and none have done that as far as I can see. So I want to know what the Minister's thoughts are on that because we are putting those industries at risk because the bill phases out support at a rate of 1 percent and then 2 percent and then 3 percent. The other thing that I'd like to ask the Minister is that the bill makes this regulation power to vary the phase-out date after 2030 but only if it's recommended by the Climate Change Commission. Now it's always been our position that the commission should have recommendation powers only and I'd just be interested in the Minister's view on that. We heard from New Zealand Steel and we heard from O-I Glass and a number of other trade-exposed industries and they talked about the lack of certainty and the lack of any technology coming on the horizon that's going to allow them to meet these targets and so they are facing significant costs in the future if the allocation of units is phased down and they certainly didn't think this bill brought them certainty.The other question I've got for the Minister—we're in a new world. We've potentially got 300000 Kiwis out of a job in the next year or so. Hopefully it's not that big but that's what the Ministry of Social Development are planning for. They're losing their incomes they're potentially losing their homes we are potentially in the worst economic crisis in living memory and this bill—no one can argue—will increase the cost of living to all New Zealanders. Now I know in the zero carbon bill because I sat in on that bill that there is a mechanism in that bill when there are events like this for the Climate Change Commission to alter its views on things and for the Government as well.But what I want to specifically ask the Minister is that yesterday he put out a press release and he's announcing under his regulation-making powers caps on the emissions trading scheme of 160 million tonnes of CO2—but this doesn't mean anything to New Zealanders. What I want to know is: what does this do to the price of fuel? What does it do to the price of carbon per tonne? What is this going to do for the basket of groceries for New Zealanders? Given that we're in these—as everyone always says—unprecedented times has he thought about the effects of COVID-19 on his press release yesterday and what that means for everyday New Zealanders in a post-COVID world? And like under the zero carbon bill is there anything in this bill or under these regulation-making powers that he should think about when imposing caps under those regulation-making powers? Thank you Mr Chair.