The other two examples have been in relation to local bills: the Rotorua bill and the Canterbury bill. The only point I'd make there is I just do hope that we'll have, I suppose, some consistency in those areas. We've had the Ministry of Justice say the Rotorua bill—which moved away from the principle, and the Minister spoke of strong conventions in our democracy, and I think one of the strong conventions in our democracy is that every person should have an equal vote in the system and their vote should carry equal weight. This Government is moving away from that by supporting—it didn't support the Rotorua bill, because the Ministry of Justice advised the Attorney-General that it did breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it wasn't justified. But then, very strangely, when it came to the Canterbury bill, which does a similar thing at the Canterbury Regional Council, breaching the equal voting rights there, we got a very different view from the Ministry of Justice saying, "Well, yes it did breach the Human Rights Act, but it's justified by the Treaty.", and there was no strong or clear argument put forward. I have every confidence that the court, if it does starting coming and making opinions here, that they'll do a better job, frankly, than what we've seen from the Ministry of Justice in the last few months in relation to those two bills where the advice has been, on the surface, rather contrary.