Now, of those who actually did submit, 76 percent of them opposed it: 9,533. And there were 191 submitters that sought to be heard, but the short notice and time frame meant that 38 percent of them were unable to orally submit. So no doubt it's a very suboptimal kind of process. You have to take the public experience of this and actually couple it up with the damning departmental expert advice that we saw in the regulatory impact statement. Now, I want to quote that, that says, "The short timeframe for developing the policy options and undertaking the impact analysis means there has been minimal consultation on the specific stage 1 proposals." and "that consultation on the proposed stage 1 legislative changes with the general public, local authorities, and iwi/hapū, was not possible."—it was not possible. The departmental disclosure statement also added that the policy details had not been, "tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill's provisions are workable and complete".