I want to just recognise the robust discussion that went on in committee there. I really want to recognise the sense of the position that, ultimately, wasn't adopted and I want to say why it wasn't adopted, because I think that's important. The idea of looking at, say, environmental impacts against the benefit to New Zealand—the reason that balancing exercise wasn't adopted was because there's a whole area of law devoted to balancing environmental impacts, for example. And that, of course, is the Resource Management Act and all of the associated mechanisms along there. So rather than kind of second guessing what the environmental impacts might be through a robust resource management process, this looks at benefit to New Zealand; it doesn't contextualise it across all of the possible overs and unders, if you like. It just says, "Let's look at the benefits. And if that's the case, then the acquisition is permitted." But of course, all of New Zealand law, whether it be planning law, whether it be employment law, and so on and so forth, will continue to apply. I've got to say that was a really useful discussion but one which, ultimately, fell on the side of that, essentially, single line test. 