If you don't mind, the first question is really fundamentally around if our problem is defined as we want to facilitate and utilise land that's underutilised and not being utilised so that it can be more productive and we can improve the productivity of that land, then what is the thinking that leads the Government to only look at the problem through a Māori-only lens versus looking at it through a broader New Zealand lens? And I guess—because it's not just Māori that have unproductive land or who have land that they own collectively or who may benefit from rates remissions, but general landowners also have that same challenge—if we're interested in improving productivity, why not allow all New Zealanders to have the same flexibility and actually do it for both as we go through this piece of legislation? I just genuinely don't understand, from a local government portfolio point of view, why general landowners are being dismissed and excluded when the same problems sit with them as they do with Māori. And I just wonder whether you could help us clarify that.