Now, these are for five suburbs that the Government and the council together have decided should be spatial plans where there's need for housing and a need for infrastructure to go with it. I'd like to know how that squares up with the recent announcement of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which essentially makes it a free-for-all, ripping up the rules that are in place within Auckland Council, the plans that are in place, the priority areas that have been drawn up over years of work for suburbs that the council has deemed to be important places for growth that need infrastructure funding, and I'd like to know how it is possible that these two different things could be happening at the same time. There is a need for infrastructure, so why on earth is she ripping up the rules when she thinks that infrastructure is important, and when she also thinks working and engaging with the local councils is also important?