I'll give you an example. In addition to the low-sulphur requirements, the bill also requires that ports provide facilities to treat ballast water. Now, we know how harmful ballast water can be to marine biodiversity. Ballast water sometimes can be, on the larger ships, up to a hundred million litres, or 50 percent of the weight of cargo carried by those ships as they come into a port like Auckland or Northport. When those ships take on freight, like logs, for example, or our dairy products, they have to discharge that ballast water into the harbours so that the ships stay on an even keel, and that ballast water can contain marine bio-organisms and other contaminants. Now, what this bill proposes to do is to require ports to provide facilities to receive that ballast water. You might say, "Well, that's a good idea, because we don't want those harmful marine pests contaminating our marine ecosystems. So that's what we should do." But, in fact, I've visited Ports of Auckland recently. I've had a look at their operation. They've made extensive investments of space and infrastructure to provide for cement siloes, to provide for storage of all kinds of bulk products, motor vehicles, plant and equipment, sensitive products and materials that need to be protected in big warehouses, and so on. I would find it very difficult to locate anything like the size of water treatment plant needed to treat a hundred million litres of ballast water from a single ship.