Thank you, and thank you for your feedback. First up, pānekei pōnekei, I know a number of you won't be around this table, but in 2021, we had in our long-term plan, we had $80 million for the bike network. We proposed, and I suppose supported, putting an extra 50% in, brought it up to around about $120 million. Last-minute decision at the end of settling that long-term plan, Wellington Water then said, we need more money. Our advice from our officers was we don't believe they've got the capacity to deliver. So what we did as a council, I didn't personally vote for it, was that we put the extra $100 million not into our water, but into the cycle network. So really what we're doing here is— and we didn't have that money to put in effectively anyway. So this is not taking money away. This is actually just saying we shouldn't have put the money there because we didn't have it, and we chose not to even fund the water back then effectively. And as we've heard from our officers, Begonia House, we are not legally prevented from removing the demolition. Option. Let's be reasonable about this. Let's be realistic about it. It's not going to happen. Now, let's— sure, in the information put in about what happens about the demolition costs, and if people do want to have a say about demolishing it, they still can, because we know with these consultation documents— and I appreciate not everyone's been around the table quite as long— is that people can submit other ideas. They're not prevented from going with the options, but let's not create even more angst in a community than we need to, because there are actually even bigger things in the Begonia House. There is the levels of our debt and the levels of our operational expenditure. And I know even around this table, trying to find— every time when we try and find savings, it's cutting much love projects, but we're not really dealing with some of the hardest things about service level reductions, and we've got to have that conversation. And I'm looking forward to the new Chief Executive starting because I think we may then be able to start having those. And in terms of the consultations around the wards, and as you've seen from— I sent you all an extract from how many voters. You know, in the geographic wards, we've got roughly 30,000 voters in each ward. And we're saying we'll just come out one for that ward. And like the northern, you know, there's no direct— between Kurori and Nyokandala, there's not a direct public transport route. It's all— you have to travel. If you want to travel by bike, fine. You can walk, it'll probably take you 2 hours, or you jump in your car, which pretty much people do. And it's not about even having town hall meetings. Yes, you can have town hall meetings. Look, I went, I popped my head into the, on Waitangi Day, there was in Kidala Hall, the council was running a Te Taurisi session, a discussion. You know, there was no security there. Everybody, you know, people could drop in and talk about it. That's what people want. And why we say on long-term plan, oh, we— it's a health and safety issue, but for Treaty to Rete, it's not. I just don't understand. I think we have differing standards, and it's not— that's not the way to treat the people that are paying the bills and saying we want to talk to you. And just because I don't want to do it online, I shouldn't be disadvantaged. And these ward meetings, anybody can attend anyway, and I know often we've had people, they've missed one, they go to another. And really, with a city of over 200,000, we are not— this is not onerous. With a staff of just under 2,000, this is not onerous when you repeat all the consultation material. And so, look, the options is asking officers to go and look at some. There may well be others and they may well come back. I'd love to can the Golden Mile. I think it's a complete waste of money other than updating Courtney Place. That's really where we needed to have those hard decisions and we haven't as a council to carry on with that sort of thing. I think that's probably it. But again, I just want to reiterate, we are deciding which costs we're not funding ourselves. We're saying to our ratepayers, you've got to pay these rates increases, but we're not. Because that's what this is— this is what this is part of saying. And we're not prepared to make some hard decisions and some cuts. So we are not paying our water rates because we can't afford to. So just think about that. This is an 11(a), investigate other options, may well mean service cuts. But as we know, with interpretation of the Local Government Act, there may not be need to consult, um, to go to consultation, or it could be, um, work done that could be useful next year, but we have to start looking at where we can really save some money because people are doing it out tough and they can't tell us, "I haven't got enough money, I'm not going to pay my rates this year," because that's what we're doing, yet we're expecting them to pay. So I look forward to your support. Thank you.