As others have noted, the name of the commission, including "Natural Hazards Commission", runs the risk of causing a bit of uncertainty about what exactly is covered and to what degree. There's certainly been some different commentary out there, so we need to absolutely make sure we unpack that in the select committee. One could argue it's just semantics and operationally it will be fine, but I'm very keen to hear that discussion. I agree there is probably justification for a name change. The EQC brand has taken a bit of a beating over the years, so it's understandable there's a wish to move on.