I just give that Cook's tour of recent activism by the Commerce Commission and recent accession to it by this House under certain Ministers that have politicised, in quite a futile way, the market and the regulation of competition in New Zealand. What we see in this legislation again, or, well, if we listen to the members who have just spoken, they were saying that, somehow, giving the Commerce Commission more power is automatically good and that removing the requirement to actually show that a particular firm is wilfully exploiting its market power—to remove that requirement is somehow automatically good, that it will make it simpler. Well, actually, if you read the early commentary on this particular move—and I want to commend Buddle Findlay for producing a very good commentary so far, and I'm sure there'll be more in select committee. What Buddle Findlay have said is, actually, if you look at the proposal for the new section 36(1) in clause 14: "A person that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in—(a) that market; or (b) any other market in which the person, or an interconnected person,—(i) supplies or acquires, or is likely to supply or acquire goods or services;", what you have is that if you innovate and your market share grows and there's a lot less competition, well, potentially, what you've done is squeezed out competitors by doing a job well and you could be liable under the Commerce Act for an investigation by an activist Commerce Commission. That doesn't sound very helpful. 