Then, when it comes to the question of—I'll presume the outcome that the Minister is after is higher wages and additional benefits, whether it's more breaks or better arrangements in some place, and that, ultimately, leads to higher costs. Does he think that the costs are irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether to do a particular production here in New Zealand or not? He seems to be implying that the only thing that really matters is the subsidy regime, or the tax treatment of it. But I suppose I'd just like to know whether he's got any evidence to support that, or whether the cost structure of the whole process and the flexibility within arrangements will make a difference. He'll probably say, "Oh, well, everybody else does it." I suppose the point is, in a global world, when you're trying to attract things into a very remote location in New Zealand, does a little bit of extra flexibility make people more likely to come here? That's not an unreasonable proposition, so I'd be interested in his thoughts around that.