Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the answers that the Minister has given. I would just, in reply, ask for further clarification on two points that he made. One is on the definition of "elimination". I am not confused about what the definition of "elimination" is, albeit that it did change last week when the Prime Minister talked exactly about what the Minister said about zero tolerance. What I am confused about is what the Director-General of Health said today when he simultaneously said in the same media briefing, "We have achieved our goal of elimination under level 4; it remains our goal under alert level 3." and then said, "[To] clarify, we haven't eliminated.", which suggests that there is a different definition of "elimination" at level 4 than there is for level 3. I don't believe that's what he intended to say. As the Prime Minister said, we're all having to dive into the language of epidemiology. I would suggest that, actually, it should be the other way round. Epidemiologists and the director-general—a very good public health physician—should be helping to translate from epidemiology to plain English. I'm afraid today it didn't go so well. The New Zealand public want to know what good looks like, what they need to do to achieve it—I think we have—and how they can continue to achieve that in level 3 lockdown. That's where the confusion rises, Minister, not about the strict definition of what "elimination" means.