RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Kia ora, Madam Chair. So I just want to ask a follow-up question to my one on emergency housing and the evidence—or, I guess, anecdotal commentary by transitional housing providers—to justify charging our people who are homeless. I just wanted to ask what feedback was given by transitional housing providers in the context of the fact that Work and Income already puts obligations on our people who are homeless to—each time they want to roll over emergency housing, they have to provide evidence that they're looking for alternative accommodation, and people in emergency housing don't have any sort of rights or tenure in general. It's a very precarious place. So, you know, I would even say that calling it "emergency housing" is not fully accurate, seeing as people don't have security. So this idea that we're bringing emergency housing in line with transitional housing by adding a cost makes no sense when the conditions are so different. The Ministry of Social Development in the annual review acknowledge that they don't proactively verify the suitability of emergency housing; only when a beneficiary has sort of said that there's concerns, maybe they'll go back and check. So I guess I'm interested in the evidence provided by transitional housing providers that this policy is justified and is not simply putting our homeless people into more hardship.