I don't disagree with a lot of the submissions you've heard on that, which have said that five years is okay, but it ought to be 10 years. Also, it is an iterative process and, of course, those targets can be amended.
What, to me, has been lost a little bit lost in some of the evidence before the committee is that there is an embedded target in the statute, which is net zero by 2050. It's a long way away. It's ambiguous. It could introduce unlimited use of offsets, which may be problematic, but it's at least there and there are requirements, essentially to be on track towards that throughout, which is a good thing. There is no open-endedness. It's all engineered toward that ultimate end point, which is a good thing.
The provisions could be more prescriptive and detailed with respect to making sure we do get there.
Thank you.