But I'd go a step further, just bearing in mind the debate that we've had in this Chamber previously was around the change that this bill will make. That boiled down to, I guess, two different accounting standards. Not being an accountant myself or as well versed in the arts of finance as my colleague Dr Deborah Russell is, from my understanding of this, there are two separate standards. These specified amenities have actually been required, because of an anomaly in legislation and contradictions of various pieces of legislation, to adhere to both. And now that's what this bill fixes, so that's what we're here for. Now, how that relates to my question around the commencement date is just going back to that point made by the Governance and Administration Committee in their report. They've said in their in their report, and I quote, "We propose that the changes would apply for a financial year that was in progress or recently completed when the legislation commenced, as well as for future reporting periods." So my question there is not just the potential to confuse matters or to make things inadvertently more challenging for these amenities but also what change specifically. My understanding is that—this goes on to later clauses so I won't go into too much detail—the retrospective validation then goes back to the fact that these amenities were actually, in fact, adhering only to one standard, and that's what we're also trying to fix, I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong, and this is to the member in the chair, Dr Parmjeet Parmar. But my understanding is we're actually trying to fix things so that we, or this House, don't inadvertently penalise registered charities who are doing some exceptionally good work across Auckland.