I also query the Green member suggesting that the likes of Russell McVeagh, my old law firm, want to entertain going through a select committee process. That's all very well and good, because they're not resourcing it. But where there is no evidence that the current legislation is not being ineffective, then there is no reason to involve taxpayer funding and resources to question whether that legislation is working. Should there be evidence, then, absolutely, but there is no evidence, as we heard tonight from my colleague Barbara Edmonds. So, like my colleague, I agree that on first blush, this is a sensible piece of legislation, it's requiring professional advisers to not deliver on the advice that they have given due to the possibility of a conflict of interest. So that's both a conflict of interest or even the perceptions or the questions that might arise in people's minds. I also agree that it's really important to have these kind of things in place, to protect the transparency that we have in our democracy and perceptions of our transparency internationally—for all sorts of reasons around economic stability and so on. But the reason that I believe that Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association New Zealand (RITANZ) members are not supporting this bill is because they already know that we have laws in place and they don't want to reduce their credibility by supporting something which is going to duplicate something which is already in place.