Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I was really quite enjoying the previous speech from Julie Anne Genter. I've forgotten what chapter we're up to on Das Kapital but we got a bit of a rundown on it. It wasn't nearly as entertaining as her speech last night. I thought that was the cream on the cake and I hope she can reach those heights again today.I am still waiting to hear the explanation around the implications of the number of units that will be available in the market through the next year for the auctions of New Zealand Units. This is a really important market issue and that has not been addressed yet by the Minister. I realise it's not the particular Minister in the chair's role but he's had ample time to get advice on this. It is incredibly important. On 2 December 2020 this Parliament declared a climate emergency. We voted against it and what we've said was because it's not the type of thing you'd declare an emergency. The Government said it was. They were supported by the Greens—I don't know which chapter that is in Das Kapital. But that emergency declaration has been followed by anything but urgency from the other side of the House.This is an incredibly important issue and the market needs to be informed. As Mr Bayly will know market uncertainty will drive outcomes that will be undesirable. So the Minister has an opportunity to get some advice and let us know because the market will be watching. I'm very interested to hear what the Minister has to say but it's not only me. There are all those actors out there including landowners who may make decisions to convert their property to a carbon farm based on the assumptions or conclusions that they come to. This is an important issue and as I said before I finished my last speech as Keith Woodford said we are facing the greatest land-use change in a century. Keith Woodford is very respected in rural sectors. He is a very learned man and his analysis is I think right on the money and the pun was intended because it is driving all of us. This New Zealand Unit price is driving not just change in land use but change in rural communities. That potentially could lead to a greater environmental perverse outcome than the one we seek to solve. I think it's incumbent on the Government who has deemed it worthy to include in the bill the Climate Change Response Act amendment. I heard the Minister say that he kind of tried to refute what the officials told us in the Finance and Expenditure Committee but I'm sure my colleagues remember that even the chair of the committee was there; I'm sure he heard it. It is quite concerning that it is really just about poor process on the part of Cabinet—not getting their backsides into gear on something that really shouldn't have had any controversy unless there's something that they haven't told us that was going on in the background. The emissions reduction plan is simply a cut-and-paste exercise from the Climate Change Commission's report. There is nothing new in it. There's nothing that's earth-shattering so why have Parliament's time here debating something that's now caused more uncertainty more uncertainty in the market which drives potentially perverse outcomes not just for those people who are seeking to offset their emissions but those people that are making day-to-day decisions on what they're going to do with their land and how they are going to react in the future? These things are long-term issues. They're not going to be sitting around on their hands until 31 May next year to make some of these decisions. They have to put them in motion now. They have to seek advice. It's a long process and by then those things will be set in stone.