I do want to touch on the other aspect of the benefit to New Zealand test, which was very much robustly discussed in committee—and I want to recognise the Greens for raising this—the question of whether you simply ask what's the benefit, what are the pluses that we can see, and what are the direct economic costs, or whether you have a much more open enquiry and ask what are the wider detractors for New Zealand. As you'd expect from the Greens, quite rightly, they identified the bringing into account of environmental issues. Now, I guess the point to be made here is that, whenever we're looking at any activity within New Zealand, any, for example, use of land, any activity on conservation land, any of those kinds of things: there is a thoroughgoing regime. And any person who is making an application—whether it be to run a tour through Milford Sound or mine in Waihī, they have to go through a rigorous and robust process. That's a process which occurs after approval has been given. So there's two quite separate questions. One is, "Is there a benefit to New Zealand?"; the second inquiry—still an important inquiry, absolutely, but it's not one you should have to do twice, you should only have to do it once—do the benefit to New Zealand enquiry for overseas investment, first, do the environmental enquiry or whatever other enquiry is important, do that one next. They're still there, and it's not appropriate to conflate those and, essentially, have a resource management hearing in an overseas investment context. So that was really important. 