So, going back to those three key policy questions that I believe the Finance and Expenditure Committee had to address: (1) whether having been resident and present in New Zealand for 10 years is too short a period for entitlement to New Zealand super—we believe that the bill as proposed, the revised tracked version, yes, 10 years is too short; (2) whether an increase in residency requirements would contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand super—although not a primary consideration, yes, we do believe the changes that we've put in the revised tracked version of the bill do contribute to the sustainability of New Zealand's super, but also, again, the contributions that we've restarted, under the previous Government, to the super fund are extremely important there too; and (3) whether an increase in residence requirements contributes to the fairness of New Zealand super for people who have contributed in New Zealand for longer—that's pretty much a no-brainer, based on the revised version of the bill.