I'm not the only one pointing that out; there are a number of others. I will read here from a learned journal: "The numbers of compulsory treatment orders vary across the country. The fact that some regions show relatively low rates suggests scope exists to reduce the overall use of compulsory treatment [orders]." I look here in the last year at South Canterbury—South Canterbury is a well-performing DHB at the moment—with a total of 96 compulsory treatment orders per 100,000, and then I look at Northland at 284, and so how do we explain that? The sum of it—that is probably Māori, and again, how do we explain that? How could we have three times more compulsory treatment orders per capita in Northland than in South Canterbury? I think that needs an explanation. I think there'll be that opportunity in select committee to delve deeper into these figures, both total comparisons across the country and Māori versus non-Māori across the country, DHB on DHB, and make some of these changes—and we are—to that indefinite time period for compulsory treatment orders. I think it will give us the opportunity to have that really rich discussion, to understand it, figure it out, and figure out what the interventions are. 