Now, as I said, this particular bill has been sponsored by the member, and I do trust that the member actually does understand those differences there, but at the moment it just exists as an assertion that, because one was for profit and one was not for profit, it makes a difference to the way that the entities have to prepare their financial difference. And, more to the point, it makes a substantive financial difference. So it really is important to understand why it makes a difference—not just that it makes a difference but why it makes a difference. Is it in the way that revenue is recognised? Is it in the way that assets are depreciated? Is it in the way that expenses are recognised? Is it in the way that, say, the members have ownership of the capital in the organisation? So what kinds of things actually make a difference between IFRS and GAAP that actually applies with respect to these Auckland regional amenities that are covered by this particular bill?