It gives a collection of redresses. One is an apology and acknowledgment and a historical acceptance of things that happened in the past, and it apologises for breaches of the Treaty in that time. There's also cultural redress intended to recognise the cultural, historical, and traditional associations of Maniapoto. This is an area where I think some people could have some pause while supporting the general concepts of this bill. The legislation, for example, asserts that a taniwha exists. Now, around the world, for very good reason, most societies have moved or are moving towards a separation between what is put in law and what is objectively agreed to be real and what is metaphysical—what is people's chosen beliefs about the world beyond the physical. The reason for that, as history has shown, with great difficulty at times, is that when people try to incorporate metaphysical beliefs into the apparatus of the State or the legal requirements for what people must believe, there is inevitably conflict because legislating metaphysical matters requires people to believe things by law that they may privately vehemently disagree with. And many people throughout history have lost their lives, fought, and been terrified and brutalised by precisely that mixing of metaphysics with the law and the State. So I think that reasonable people, while supporting the thrust of this bill and the concept of redress, can ask themselves whether or not something such as the assertion of the existence of a taniwha is something that belongs in statute law in a modern and democratic society, which is surely what—or at least I would hope—all members would want New Zealand to be.