But it's in clause 4(b) that the meat of this amending legislation sits, and that clause 4(b) says, "enable the council to sell that land if the land becomes surplus to the Council's requirements." And, really, it became clear during the submissions that the Environment Committee heard from council and others that council actually does intend to sell this land. And so my question to the sponsoring member is: if it's very clear that this land is to be sold and developed for medium-density, high-density housing that is needed in the city of Palmerston North, then why are we sort of dancing on the head of a pin with the pretext of words like "if the land becomes surplus"? It's pretty clear I think to everybody that the purpose of this amending piece of legislation is to do exactly that, and I think, in terms of the drafting, we could have been perhaps a little bit more clear. But I do understand that, ultimately, what this piece of legislation does is give the power and authority of the council to make the final decision as to what will happen to the land to the elected representatives of the Palmerston North City Council.