I understand the sensitivities for communities that, for some, this is something that they don't believe in and that doesn't work, and they feel aggrieved that it's placed into their water supply. So this was part of our thinking to pass it to DHBs where there was community representation. This bill removes that and places that with the director-general, and I understand the imperative for that, the imperative to more effectively implement across DHBs. The reality is that if it had have been just at a DHB level, there was probably some DHBs who would have said no, actually. That's the indications we had. If we really believe this is an effective public health mechanism, it needs to be widely deployed so I can understand the imperative that places it with the director-general. I would still reflect—and this was the intent of the Supplementary Order Paper in my name—that we should still take the community view into account as best as we can. While I understand that the director-general does need to take into account the oral health of the population, the feasibility, the readiness to start, and the cost, at the end of the day, that Supplementary Order Paper was looking for a bit more than that from whatever becomes DHBs or replaces them, whatever that community contribution would be. I still think the community should have a say a bit more than what I'm seeing in this bill, and I hope that can be figured out. I hope that the director-general has got a bit more discretion to reach out further than what I'm interpreting the legislation as saying.