Now, in my view, forestry should be able to compete in its own right, if it's the most economic land use. If it has the best environmental practices on a particular area of land, then so be it; that should be justification enough without having to have special exemptions to outcompete in the market, and that's where we've got to under this. So I'd be very interested to know what adverse outcomes there were from it, because I'm sure they must have done some analysis of that when considering how far to wind back those rules put in place, because the Minister touched on his view that winding it back to the level of agriculture was too far. I'm surprised by that because, actually, we still have obviously more onerous requirements for any overseas investors wanting to invest in agricultural land. That was part of the submission from Federated Farmers as well, noting that farmland to forestry, going through the general benefit, as opposed to farmland to farmland sales still having to go through the more stringent test for farming, where the benefits have to be substantial and more than what a New Zealand owner could do.