Anyway, let's talk to this bill. I do support—and we do support—fluoride. We believe in the science that supports fluoride. I think if we look across the health spectrum, if we look on a cost per people touched for benefit sort of ratio, it's almost hard to go past fluoridation. There might be things that you could do in other parts of the food chain per se, but I've always found and always believed that fluoridation is one of those really effective mechanisms that can touch the most number of people in a good way. I can understand why district councils for many years have said that they were a poor fit to be injecting fluoride into the water. As has been said, they were sort of thinking, "This is a health response. We aren't the specialists in health and yet we're going to bear the responsibilities for things that might go wrong in areas that we don't have domain expertise.", and for a large number of councils, this was the reason why they didn't fluoridate. So in 2016, we said, "Yes, look, we agree. Why don't we shift that decision making to DHBs, where we've got that combination of elected people offering a community voice and appointed people bringing Government policy?" Sort of looking for that blend of both, understanding the sensitivities of fluoridation and fluoride in the water in communities. We thought that was a sensible place to put it.