I'll add a few questions to that, particularly in respect of the transition now, but, firstly, one other thing I think is a fascinating summary of the brightline test exemption contained in page 60 of the regulatory impact assessment around the degree to which other options were considered—10 years is what we're going for; 15 years was also considered. Indeed, Treasury's preferred option was for a 20-year brightline test. Well, that walks, wobbles, and quacks like a duck, frankly; it's called a capital gains tax, even at 10 years, but Treasury was talking about 15 and 20. My question to the Minister is: did he ask for that advice? It's very unclear. Did Treasury just simply give him advice he didn't ask for, or did Cabinet consider a raft of options, including a 15-year brightline test and a 20-year brightline test?