Also, I just wanted the House to note the decisions made by the two Justices, Justices Blanchard and Tipping—this reminds me of my law school days—in their statement saying that "Anyone asserting a breach of s 36 must establish there has been the necessary actual use (taking advantage) of market power. To do so it must be shown, on the balance of probabilities"—and we all know that that's actually quite a hard test; it's very subjective to the judges that are presiding over that case, and also the lawyers that are arguing it—"that the firm in question would not have acted as it did in a workably competitive market; that is, if it had not been dominant." So there's a lot of presumption, there's a lot of room for argument, and we know that this case in particular—the Commerce Commission v Telecom in 2010, in the New Zealand Supreme Court—failed because it was really hard to argue up to that standard. This is, I think, a waste of taxpayers' money in terms of having to go through the Supreme Court, which is a really lengthy legal process, to hire lawyers and to argue this, when what we're trying to achieve is just better competition in our markets.