ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Well, thank you for that. So I think what the Minister in the chair is trying to suggest is that there is enough clarity with the standards now that if you apply those three concepts, and particularly the one where you've got investors investing in a company on the basis of what is included in those reports—are you suggesting that there is a clear limit? Because what happens is, in many cases, you can set objectives like these, which are great sounding, but it is the extent of the requirements. So does it set out, for instance, the need to do economic modelling around it? Does it have to have taken into account assessment of risk factors, and, therefore, who do you rely on to provide those? Are you looking at impact of climate change on infrastructure or housing or shoreline or rising water tables or more frequent, intense storms? To what extent is there clarity in the standards? Because, otherwise, this will end up being a situation that in 10 years' time we'll all be sitting here and the reports cost hundreds of thousands for these large entities to do—and, no doubt, the Government will extend the mandate beyond that—and they will just grow without any clarity, because as people do more and more, they'll get deeper and deeper and they'll cost more and more and they'll take longer to do.