When the Māori Law Society was talking about Part 5 of the bill, they really encouraged us to be taking a broader look at how we meet our Treaty obligations, particularly in regards to how they thought the purpose clause had been framed quite narrowly, only recognising kaitiaki relationships with taonga species and mātauranga Māori within New Zealand law. They noted that in order for us to meet our Treaty obligations in full, we needed to go way beyond that, and I think this is something that was echoed as well with other submitters. While many of them were encouraging of the Government's intent to update the regime and were encouraging of the intent to ensure that we were looking at meeting our Treaty obligations, people were, I guess, cautious about the fact that we're doing it in the context of a trade agreement as opposed to, first and foremost, constitutional issues. 