Just going back to those Budgets of old, and if you think about subsidy on 2,4,5-T, for example, I can think of at least Bill Rowling and Rob Muldoon, both of whom as finance Ministers approved those sort of subsidies. Those days are long gone, but none the less it is necessary for us in New Zealand to encourage the use of the right type of product, and also to encourage the use of product that we can later justify in the international marketplace. That's why I refer to the things like 2,4,5-T because at the time those products were perfectly legitimate, and they were they were accepted as being products that would do no harm in the future. I don't know whether the work had been done on those products, but none the less they were products we used, and that's how life seems to evolve. We go through stages where things that are perfectly acceptable, later on in life, become unacceptable. I think that it's hugely important for the science behind the work that the EPA does to be as good as you can get at the time. Of course, science evolves as well. One product that comes to mind for me that was mentioned by the Greens speaker earlier is per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which we thought was a perfectly legitimate product to New Zealand. It was used in firefighting and all sorts of, I guess, community-good projects. Now we find it contaminates water supplies. So that's how things evolve and change. I guess at the time PFAS was introduced, for example, we didn't understand the potential damage it might do; we now do. So the world changes quickly. So it's important that not only is the EPA able to use the best information available worldwide, but it's also able, I guess, to fund the work that it needs to do, and clearly they've got a mechanism in place to do that.