It's really bad law, but it's actually a terrible, terrible imposition which highlights, again, in the departmental disclosure statement, the question of costs and benefits for trusts, because there wasn't an analysis done. IRD have simply said, apart from the 39 percent tax rate risk impact assessment, as indicated in another section, there is little or no publicly available analysis on the size of potential costs and benefits of this new trust reporting requirement. But the IRD proposes—or the risk impact assessment notes that Inland Revenue will conduct a post-implementation review of the proposed information requirements for trusts that will include a consultation with affected trustees to determine the compliance costs associated with the new requirements. So what we're being asked to do is consider and pass a bill that will have a cost on trusts. They haven't gone out to find out what that cost could be, and their only answer is to say, "Well, we're going to do a post-implementation review and ask people how much it cost them to comply with the Act." That is shabby in the extreme, and, frankly, for that reason, I'm inclined to think that clause 35 should also be deleted, but I'm open to the Minister's and the officials' comments about why that shouldn't occur.