Now, you can have whatever position you like on how we might go about trying to reduce emissions, but this particular approach is totally unfair because, primarily, it reduces the ability for those people to have options. Now, regardless of your view on how you may or may not go about this, if there is simply no option, then it makes it incredibly difficult for people to comply, or they can't comply if there's no electric ute option or no electric vehicle (EV) that might suit the needs of whatever their particular vocation requires. And, on that basis, it becomes inherently unfair that they get penalised for something with which they have no ability to comply. So, on that basis alone, this bill is absolutely flawed and is unfair for a significant portion of New Zealanders who make a massive economic contribution, whether that be in the rural space or in the construction space, or in any other area where your vehicle of choice is one that does not have an electric alternative—or indeed, actually, for many of these low and middle income families that we've heard won't be impacted by this. Ms Genter said "It saves people a lot of money."—direct quote from Ms Genter that this bill saves people a lot of money. Well, I haven't seen any justification for how that might actually be the case; quite the opposite when we hear that the increased costs, from the tax perspective under this bill, will require those people to be paying more for vehicles that they may look to purchase, if, indeed, they make that purchasing decision at all. And, as Mr Bennett said earlier on, that is unlikely to happen as soon as it may have without this bill.