The second aspect around the financing mechanisms is: why are we not simply just utilising existing mechanisms for funding and financing of infrastructure that are already in play and in the Minister's disposal today in regards to matching long-term assets with long term funding? Because when you look at Auckland specifically, part of the challenge there is that we've got assets that last, you know, maybe fifty years or so, yet the way in which they're currently financed is maybe between three and five years. Well, I don't know. I've got, you know, my nine-year-old son at home, you probably could work out that, you know, that doesn't—that sounds like a mismatch to me, right? So why are we simply not matching the duration of funding to the duration of the asset? Quite simple. Because if we did that, then we would be able to sustainably fund and finance this infrastructure. We don't need to create—and maybe I'm being simplistic, but we don't need to create a mega-entity model, mega-bureaucracy; try and centralise 67 councils into four big entities; create a governance model which means that within these entities there's only seven seats at the table for 22 councils, and again, I didn't do too well at maths, but I can work out that actually that means that two-thirds of the councils won't have a voice. Why are those two elements bottom lines when we went into this process, which means now we're dealing with a bill and a piece of legislation on the table, and all the costs that we talked about through the Estimates process that have been spent, and we've got hard-working taxpayer dollars out of the pockets of taxpayers in this country—why have we got to that point? Because of those underlying bottom lines.