I appreciate the amendment. I can't support it, mostly because I think that putting the target itself into the language of the bill would mean that in order to change the target, the bill would have to be amended, which I think adds a certain amount of uncertainty and, obviously, time to that process.
I note that the 2030 target is intended to be reviewed in 2025. I think the intention is to create the framework within the bill for the setting of the target, but not to embed the target itself in the language of the bill.