It is also very disingenuous when we hear from the other side of the House that this measure is unfair. How can they say that it is unfair when they have implemented a similar scheme during a similar crisis but at a lesser scale—a similar crisis but, as I said, at a lesser scale? Not that we're downplaying the impacts of the Canterbury earthquakes in any way, but how can they say that it is unfair when they did something similar and we, whilst in Opposition, supported it? We have never said that this was the answer to the overhaul that was asked of us and that has been actively sought by the Green Party, and I continue to say that there is more work that needs to be done with respect to the overhaul. But I have been disappointed also that with respect to this particular job loss cover scheme, which is temporary in nature, on so many occasions, people have quoted the Welfare Expert Advisory Group's report, limiting their commentary to benefit increases, which of course are important, but ignoring the other recommendations that are in that report. We need to also acknowledge that, actually, recommendation No. 37 of the expert advisory group's report on welfare was to strengthen the Ministry of Social Development's redundancy support policies to better support displaced workers. 