This is an area where, as others have noted—and I think the National Party was slightly mistaken in thinking that, by changing the name of the commission to the Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake, the range of hazards which are covered is being expanded. My understanding is that the range of hazards stays the same, but this is where the issue potentially arises with things like sea level rise. There will be pressure on the Crown to expand the range of hazards which can be covered, because how do we as a community ensure, as we've done with EQC, that that cost of recovery is shared across the community and doesn't just fall primarily on those who are affected. Things like the increased risk of flooding—yes, EQC covers damage to land from flooding, not damage to buildings from flooding. There will be more conversations, I think, around this and how that risk is shared. This again is an area where the commission has a critical role because, with the seismic research that it has done in Canterbury and elsewhere, it has a much better understanding of risk, how buildings can be modified and better built to protect against seismic hazard. This research function of the commission is quite critical, and that's also dealt with in the bill in making sure that the commission is adequately resourced to do that.